To be fair, I think the population of NZ was only like 320 men at that time.;-) They're not really covered in a lot of media and my memory is pretty fuzzy. So, I'll see what I can remember...
The ANZAC forces were a phenomenal asset. It must have been tough, emotionally, as many of them were brought away from their home soil at the same time Japan was heading their direction. Many people don't know how close Japan got to landing on Oz. Had Japan landed on Oz, things would have been bad. I want to say that Oz had some reservists who fought a rear-guard action off on Papua New Guinea?
Fortunately, the USMC was on the way. They and the USN, depleted though they were, managed to fend them off with a bit of help from some of the island folks who helped keep the Japanese busy. Quite a few Marines ended up in Oz for training and then they did some R&R and some hurry up and wait on Oz later in the war. The first (maybe) island that the Marines landed on was just north of Oz. I don't remember the name of that one either and I'm way too lazy to look.
But, what little there was for ANZAC troops got pulled away to North Africa, India, Hong Kong, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, and even to sit idle (for a spell) in in the British Isles. It was probably a good choice. They were lacking equipment and training. The US was already on the way by the time Japan was really speeding down towards that direction.
It was fairly well known that Japan was starting to spread themselves thin. It was also a bit of a risk that they took because if Japan had managed to land troops on Australia it would have been a pain in the ass to get them out of there and, worse, they'd have continued their abhorrent behaviors. The soldiers were a despicable group of people and it's odd that people try to make excuses for them. (As an aside, my own country and some citizens have done plenty of despicable things and I'm offended by their behavior and call it out when I can.)
Another thing that lots of people don't seem to know is really how close Japan came... I know I already mentioned it but they actually bombed a port and a town in N. Oz. (I forget the name, I think it might begin with the letter M? Port M.?) The citizens had about a dozen rifles or something like that between them. They had few vehicles. They were ordered to run away, as I recall. They'd already dug a bunch of holes and made bomb shelters but they were told to run away - I'm pretty sure. I seem to recall at least one documentary that mentions strafing but I might be conflating it with another attack.
Meh, I'm too lazy to Google. If you're unaware and are curious, I'm sure Google knows the rest of the story and can fix any mistakes in my memory. That should be fairly close to accurate. In all probability, someone knows the rest of the details.
You might be on to something. 'Cause I did pay attention in school and now that you point that out - it makes some sense. While you're certainly not "right" with the hyperbole, you're close enough. I'm pretty sure "all the people" can't actually be wrong. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
As near as I can tell, they'll throw the label "communism" on anything. They'll do the same for "socialism." They'll do the same thing for "fascism." Oh, wow!
That makes me curious...
Of the three (or pick your own) which do you think is the most abused or misunderstood? I'd say "Libertarianism" but that doesn't count because the Libertarians give off some very mixed messages and that's a case where the word's definition is actually starting to really change (and not in a good way). So, I can't say that one. I'll have to go with "Fascist." I think that one gets overused more than any of the others. Sadly, even though it's being used more often than the others - I think it's also more likely to be used incorrectly.
"No, I don't think anyone should be allowed to buy closed source software. Nobody should even be allowed to make it. You're a fascist for saying that people should be allowed to make that choice!"
"You pay for music? You are a boot-licking, fascist, authoritarian, goose-stepping, GeStaPo pig fucker and, if I see you on the street, I will spit on your face and then stab your children to death with a fucking rusty railroad spike, you retarded Nazi fuck!"
You know, while I can't reach and grab an immediate citation for those - I dare say they're almost verbatim to some of the comments I've read. I'm not even joking. I do wish I were joking but I am not. I'm not even trying to be funny.
So, which do you think it abused and/or used most in the least correct manner?
"You think that it's okay for a business to make a profit so long as they're following the laws and paying all their taxes? You want to poison the rivers, kill the babies, put lead back into paint, throw away the EPA, and give the keys to the kingdom to the corporations! Go to Somalia, a Libertarian paradise, you fascist fuck!"
I don't think that's verbatim but I've seen similar to that about a billion and three times this week alone. Alright, that might be a slight exaggeration. But, not much of one... What's eerie is that the person who makes those types of statements has a good chance of getting moderated up. Maybe it's just my own dictionary that's broken and my teachers gave us bad definitions.
Thanks for the additional info and for the clarification. You actually just confirmed, sort of, something that I was confused about. How to explain this or ask this?
Back in the 1980s, I had my clearance because I transported detainees. I was already a driver so they sent me to school to become a chaser/escort. (I was in the Marines.) Because I had to deal with certain types of records that may be classified, because I had to physically handle them, I had to get my clearance. Even though they were often in sealed envelopes (I had no need to know) and there were occasional bits that were classified, I never *did* anything with those records other than transport them and maybe observe them, heard them read aloud, etc. As an escort/chaser, I do not leave my prisoner alone and unattended, that may include even being present while they communicate with council - I can not be called to testify, I could not be a witness for or against.
I got out and had to re-apply in 1999. This time it was to work as a civilian, as a contractor, on a project. I'm given to understand that that's not actually required any longer? I have no idea but I had to re-apply as it had been longer than ten years since my initial approval. I have been told by someone claiming to have their clearance that they no longer need to reapply even if they've been idle/uninvolved for ten years. Actually, I could have sworn that it was not even ten years but seven? That's not really important but I wasn't sure if they were being dishonest. 'Cause I *know* I had to get my clearance and fill the forms out a second time in 1999. I am not sure if it was 10 or 7 years but, either way, it had been longer than 10 years so that's immaterial to me.
However... Here's the strange thing. I could have sworn that, at least when you're dealing with mixed classification data (for example, prisoner case/trial documents) if you're not sure then it defaults to classified. That anything near, around, similar, or whatnot - it was all considered classified unless not expressly marked. It was all handled as if it was classified. That's not the most articulate description, sorry. But, even though some prisoners, the majority actually, had no classified data in their court paperwork - all data was handled as if it was.
Now it gets slightly less clear... Oh, and I could have sworn that, at one time, "unclassified" was actually a classification itself? But, that's a whole other topic even though it's related.
Next, I had no choice but to work with mixed data. This was very, very much a case of a classified paperclip type of deal. This was a case where a certain data set was quite expressly classified as secret, some was unclassified, and some was classified as FOUO. Now here's the kicker - once they "touched" the results were considered classified. Except, I think they call them classification officers? Something like that... Except, once they got hold of it, quite a bit of it ended up unclassified. (Boy would it have been damned stupid for it to remain classified, I can't say what I'd done but I can say that would have been the exact opposite of what my goal was.)
At any rate, in that instance too - things defaulted to classified. They were later unclassified by the classification officer. The thing is, it was classified by default. Basically the training was and rules were, "Assume secret until told/marked otherwise. Even if not secret, consider it FOUO. Even if not FOUO, consider it need to know."
Sorry for the novella... It's not easy to explain all this. I'm not the most articulate. I seem to recall the protocol was the same if any record was misplaced - it was counted as spillage and treated as spillage. We made damned well sure to not misplace documents. I had a senior officer end up with an other-than-honorable for leaving a prisoner's records/trial documents on the front seat of a staff car while he went into the PX. We made damned sure to not misplace documents. He did not normally handle documents and was running the manila envelope acro
> Do you make a big deal about what kind of printer people use to print papers?
Personally? Nope. I do not. However, you can bet your ass that the people who print and publish think that sort of thing is very important. They want to know brand, model, model variations, value-adds, accessories, layout, layout equipment, assembly, assembly method, conveyor system, and they even want to know things like the ink and the brand of ink. And those aren't even the half of it. On top of that, they don't just want to know for themselves, they want to know what the rest of them are doing in the industry or in their individual shops.
They're actually quite keen on knowing that information.
Not that I don't get what (I think) you're trying to say but that's a horrible analogy, unless I'm missing something. I suppose it's possible that I'm missing something. It can and does happen. I don't actually know much about the printing industry but I did end up having to have to learn some few things about it. I actually own a part of a small printing house and was recently given the chance to invest in a second one. They are not a newspaper printing company (either one of them) but they both do print some newspapers.
Print is not dead - it's still alive and well. Newspapers aren't doing so well but print, in and of itself, isn't doing bad at all. I've already made back the money from the first investment (they wanted to buy some new equipment and the bank would not extend their credit, a similar situation with the second one but I've not yet said yes or no to that one) and I expect they'll be buying my share of the business back soon.
Seeing as I'm here and bored... Heh, I should link 'em. They do specialty orders and do online orders.
They print specialty stuff and can work with some fancy papers now. They're not a huge outfit or anything. They've located themselves into what was a shoe factory. They only rent half of it but they've got four machines now and all four do a few things differently though there's some overlap. They don't just print but they also bind. They can work on fancy card stock, parchment type stuff, and things like that. They've got one piece of equipment, made in Germany, that they got not too long ago which is how I got involved. I guess it was about four years ago now. Anyhow, they can do fancy leather-bound books that look like they're old rough-cut paper. They're actually made of a recycled paper but they don't do the recycling themselves.
At any rate... That's a horrible analogy!!!;-) There are some people who really, really want to know what type of printer was used. Some of them are really neat. You can print there on that machine, but it's slower and more expensive, so you can "break" it and cut out a part of the process and just print it on a different machine and then skip that whole first section and feed the now-printed stock into it. At that point, you almost don't even touch it. It cuts it or folds it. It can sew it or glue it. It attaches a cover. You can insert things in multiple places and even make a partial loop so things go back around and get more added to it cumulatively before it goes to the next stage which would be binding.
After binding, you can actually get another chunk to this system and it will pack them, wrap them, count them, and even can inspect them (to some degree). It can stitch and hot-glue the bindings. It's all really kind of neat and all sorts of fancy. You can add to it and grow it as you grow your printing company. The way it is now, it can take 2 to 8 people to fully operate it. It could go as low as one operator (more a tender) or you can get them to stretch whole building lengths I guess. I've seen it and seen it in action and got to see what it looked like during the install.
I just did a quick Google and I can't find the name of the manufacturer. They're from Germany, I know that much. It's green. That's probably not that helpful. But, it's mostly green, some gray, a few monitors and inputs, and
Didn't Citizen's United make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose?
No.*
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.
Yes.
* No. Citizen's United v. FCC (assuming that's what you're talking about) in 2007 is often misrepresented and there's a lot of misinformation about the case and the ruling. As I'm unable to guess what you believe to be true (but can infer that you don't actually understand the case or the ruling), all I can do is suggest that you take a few minutes to get to understand it. It's one of those things that people seem keen on lying about and lots of people don't bother actually doing the research themselves. Instead of looking, they just believe what they're told. Why they'd want to listen to people frothing at the mouth and with a history of dishonesty is beyond me.
If you're actually curious, you can do some reading at Wikipedia. I've not bothered reading the article but, if it's like many others, I'd use it as a jump-off point and then find some more information. It's a little complicated but it's not terribly difficult to get the gist. However, I can assure you that it doesn't actually "make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose." No, not even remotely.
Actually, I've got a free minute or ten. Let me see what I can find that's actually readable and accurate.
The second link is probably the better of the two, for simple layman's understanding, and then the Wiki is "fine" for a good read for more information. However, if you really want the meat of the ruling then the final link is ideal. That link has lots of other links to read the ruling, amicus briefs, opinions from the courts, the actual documents, and things like that. It's a lot to digest, I've actually read some of it. SCOTUSblog is one of my favorite sites and I check/refer to it often. It's surprisingly handy.
Over the years, I've noticed that people are keen on being dishonest, lying by omission, misrepresenting, and intentionally advocating incorrect inferences. Often it's the loudest and most zealous people who do that, sometimes even going far enough to fabricate data. Rather than take them at their word, rather than rely on journalists, rather than rely on popular opinion, I've just made the effort to go find out the facts (as much as I can). I'd like to say it works well but I don't think it really does because it does nothing to actually help encourage others to do the same.
Two things, neither of which is important and then some conversational gibberish that's not really important at all.
1. Trump is bought and paid for. He's bought and paid for himself. That's a good or a bad thing, depending on your view.
I've been paying attention and it's very clear, as I've said multiple times, that I'm a Sanders supporter. I'm also pretty damned left (by US politics) but for vastly different reasons than the Dems.
2. And, as I've been paying attention, I've noticed there's actually an almost sane/reasonable candidate on the Rep side. I kid you not... His name is Rubio. You gotta ignore the media and actually listen to what he says and read about how he has been in the past. He's not that bad. I'm sure as hell not going to vote for him but I can understand others doing so. He's moderate, fiscally conservative, and not a religious zealot.
He's got some reasonable ideas, an acceptable history, and he seems to understand things like privacy. He's not horrible. I can (from what I've come across so far - remember that nobody is perfect, not even me) even understand people supporting him.
Like I can't actually understand why people are supporting Hillary. I can understand why people are supporting Trump but I don't agree with them. That's okay. I don't have to agree. I can understand the Bernie supporters - and I agree with them *AND* agree with Bernie. I can understand the Rubio supporters and agree with them - to some extent. At the very least, I can understand their perspective and why they hold the views that they do hold.
At any rate, I'm not an expert or anything. I didn't really start paying any attention to him at all until about a month ago and have only been watching him for the past couple of weeks with a bit more intensity. (It sometimes takes me a while before I make up my mind. I like to get more information.) But, I've been kind of paying attention to him a bit more and he's not that bad. He gets some pretty shitty press.
I've touched on this once before but he's really not that bad. I'd much, much rather Sanders. I'm pretty sure they'd never do it but I've been pondering this since a conversation the other day - a Sanders/Rubio ticket might actually be interesting, I've also speculated that a Sanders/Trump ticket would be amusing.
Finally, I've generally been voting third party for 40 years of votes now. Yup. I've been throwing my vote away on third party candidates since 1976. Almost every vote that I've ever cast has been for someone from as far outside the system as possible. Yes, I'm aware that I'm throwing my vote away. I'm okay with that. I figure if more of us do it then they'll eventually notice the trend and the number crunchers will start recommending more third party candidates. The number of people voting third party has been increasing, albeit slowly, so it might happen. I'll probably be dead and gone before it happens (I'm getting pretty old) but there's a chance that it happens in my lifetime.
Are you certain that the data, once collected, isn't considered classified? I was under the impressions that the records were classified... It has been a *long* time since the training and the whole process. Early 2000s was when I went through it for that program and I've had nothing to do with anything of that nature since the end of 2003. I'm kind of annoyed that they'd retained the data but I'll be (hopefully) all good. I already have the 'do not issue credit' flag set as the records are locked at the credit reporting agencies. Regardless, it's mostly just annoying.
Oh, and no... No, I really don't think the data needed to be classified as secret in my case. I wasn't really working with anything that special. At the time, we all pretty much agreed that FOUO would have been fine. I suspect you probably worked with more significant data. I modeled traffic, vehicular and pedestrian, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not allowed to elaborate on what I did specifically.
It was a neat process. We had to use their hardware. I have no idea what they did with it when we were gone. And yes, I believe I know what you mean by air-gapped and that it might be debated. I'm inclined to agree with your definition, it works for me. We had two systems, the first had regular(ish) access. Hmm... You know? I don't think I'm actually at liberty to discuss the second one? I can say that data was often transferred physically but that options were available. I'm not actually sure what I can say about it and, equally important, I don't even know the technical details.
The physical access was kind of unusual. We had cell phones then but I don't think we had cameras in them. Even if we did, it wasn't allowed. We weren't even allowed to bring the phones in. No cameras at all. No discs could be brought in. No compute devices - that included my little Palm. We were subject to physical searches at any time and on entrance and egress. There was a bit more to it but I'm not actually sure I can disclose that.
Chances are pretty good that you're more familiar with it than I, have done so more recently than I, and are probably more aware of whatever changes have been made in the interim.
No, no it's not hate speech. Even if such a thing (hate speech) existed, it is not that
There is no such thing as hate speech. There's just speech. How you interpret it and what you do in response to it is up to you. Rather than try to muzzle others, block your ears.
I don't have a dog in this fight but you point out spelling and then call him a juvenile. You call it juvenile name calling. You then call them a loser.
Yet, I bet you feel like you're better than they are. We can probably infer your political affiliation. As the adult in the room, I'd like to point out that you're reaping what you sowed.
At any rate... Do you not see the irony in your answer? And no, don't try the "it was intentional!" thing.
That looks like a link to the Caspian Sea Monster. IIRC, that was from the 1960s. Rogue Waves weren't well understood at the time because very few had observed them and lived to tell about them. I seem to recall having learned that, until not that long ago, they were believed to not even be real but exaggerated stories from fisherman and sketchy sailors.
I dunno what you know about them but I know that I know very little about them other than what I've seen in a couple of documentaries. So, unless you know something I don't know - I'm thinking an untimely run-in between a Rogue Wave and a ground-effect craft is gonna be problematic.
It appears that this is a new algorithm, that's the terminology. Regardless of any audio history, the algorithm wasn't known prior. It is now known. Thus, we call it new.
In my humble opinion, it's not new. It has always been there. It has just been uncovered, discovered, inferred, revealed, or whatever. The algorithm doesn't care if we know about it or not. It just exists. However, that's a rather long-winded way to express it and will likely confuse the folks on the short bus. So, "new" is gonna have to do unless you want really long-winded/verbose press-releases.
> and even in the US, military related things get stolen by hackers all the time- just not classified stuff.
I'm pretty sure all of our data that was taking in the OPM attack is considered classified. I suspect classified data gets stolen more often than they tell us about it. Hell, it probably happens more often than they know about it.
As an aside; I've worked on an airgapped system. It's a kind of neat process. It was a little frustrating and I'm not sure that the data I was working with needed to be considered classified but they didn't actually want or ask for my advise on the subject. We couldn't even use our own hardware.
Correction accepted. Err... I don't tweet much. Read, never. I don't actually have an account. No, I don't have a Facebook, MySpace, or any other accounts of that nature. I'm kind of a slacker these days.
At any rate, twits sounds an appropriate name for the users - if the general consensus and antics I read about are to be believed. Though, I guess, life's probably a lot easier when you're able to reduce your thoughts and opinions into 140 characters. I've found life to be a bit too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.
It's a fine spot to start. Click on citations and read the source material and then dig down from there. It's literally one of the best places to start on the internet. You start there, you then follow it back or forward, and think for yourself. If you can't use Wikipedia as a good start that speaks more to you than it does to them. It's full of excellent search terms to find source material on other sites, it lists dates so that you an find newspaper articles that might not be listed, it has citations so that you can check it for balance, names, and locations and do more research from there.
We're never going to agree on this and you've provided no reasons for me to change my view. Just because you go to Wikipedia and stop there isn't my fault. It's a fine place to start, you just have to be less lazy and able to think for yourself. It's a great jump-off point. It's a horrible end-point. The problem is those who use it as an end point as opposed to a tool to find more information, original sources, and actual information that's not slanted with opinions. Be less lazy? It's worth noting that you offered no alternative. It's a fine place to start, it's a damned stupid place to stop.
I'm listening to news radio. It turns out that Samsung just managed to win in court. Two patents were ruled as invalid and one was ruled as non-infringing. This will obviously be appealed.
At any rate, I want to hope that there's no connection and that they're being given justice in their other court cases but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the judge just figured he'd make life a little more difficult for Apple. Maybe they were directed to do so, to show them who is in charge or similar. I hope not but, sadly, that wouldn't even remotely surprise me.
And no, I'm not saying that there is a connection - just that it wouldn't surprise me. I imagine that if someone wants a story to go green, this might be a valid subject. I don't submit much and I'm pretty lazy. This was not the rounded corner, design patent, case. This was about automatically linking URLs, slide to unlock, and some push something or other. Two were found invalid and the other's sure to be appealed - I didn't memorize it.
Yeah, it was kind of odd. I'm not sure if NZ declared war on their own or not. I recall that India did not, they were covered as they were still in the UK. There were a few other (I can't help but call 'em this) colonies that fell into the same line. I want to say that Canada did not declare war on their own either?
As an aside, I'm sure you know this but someone else might come across our conversation, it's impressive to see what was done by Canada and Canadians during WWI and WWII. They're often overlooked in the books and movies. They've really contributed so much. I've had the opportunity to train and serve with them in joint activities. I don't normally have many bad things to say about anyone but I've got nothing bad to say about my experiences in having done so.
I'm thinking you missed the whole "good place to start." If you're curious, you didn't ask, I find it reprehensible when anyone does it. These are not free speech zones inside the convention hall. They're outside, pushed at a distance, and restricting the use of public property. Now *that* is something that perturbs me. Inside the venue, that's private property (usually). Outside, on the street, is not. That the government allows this is disheartening. That you liken it to physical security is disingenuous.
At any rate, the "good place to start" is the key part of that. I should probably stop expecting people to read all the words that I write. I do tend to say things too complex to fit on a bumper and they surely don't fit in a Twit. (I'm thinking Twit is singular.) So, I guess it's not entirely unlikely that you'd miss some of the words.
While you're correct in my case, with that specifically, you'd be surprised at what some of us have in our home server closets. I have two racks in mine but nothing fancy like that. I even have a small, but older now, blade server from HP. I have the conduit for fiber but haven't put it in yet. I'd do it but I don't know how to do the connections and splicing. I've played around with it on a friend's work equipment but I'm not actually any good at it.
It's also important to note that BYU is private and thus is not actually subject to *some* of the restrictions that are in place at a public institution. That might seem to be little different and I'd agree that they're morally similar. However, the other is a question of legality and a rather basic enumerated right. The similarity ends there.
Apologies if BYU is not private because I'm too lazy to go look but I'm pretty sure they are.
I don't like Trump, as I'm sure you know, but I've actually listened to his speeches (some of them) and I'm pretty sure he's not guilty of that. Oh, he's close to guilty of that - he's walking a damned fine line. But, I don't think he's guilty of that. I'm not even sure his goal is intimidation.
And I have listened. The reason(s) I listened were many and I was going to listen anyhow. I was going to listen even if just to point out the problems. And there are lots of problems to point out.
One of the things that gets thrown out about Trump is that he's sounding like a Fascist. He really isn't. Not he, himself. However, listen to some of his followers and fans? Now *they* sound like what I picture a modern fascist to sound like. Or, at risk of Godwinning, Hitler. Trump doesn't sound like Hitler. His fans kind of sound like Hitler's fans. Then again, they have a lot of similarities with the rabid Obama fans.
I've also noticed a trend to take much of what he says out of context. I don't actually know why they bother. Trust me, it's horrible enough without the need to exaggerate or take things out of context.
You know what? That was well written and I need an excuse. So, there's another donation for FIRE. I put a little check mark down on an index card next to me. I'm going to reread this thread later. I'm gonna keep making check marks, I hope, and then I'm gonna donate a few bucks for every one of 'em.
Why? Because (this is NOT directed at you, obviously) fuck those guys who'd squash speech. I don't even have much of anything offensive to say. However, I damned well want to retain the right to say offensive things if I should change my mind. Seriously, fuck 'em in ass with a red-hot poker.
Hmm... Actually, I should go through and make a donation to FIRE for every post that is *for* stifling speech. But, that'd only encourage you clever people to say things along that line. So, no... I'm on to you guys and your sneaky ways! At any rate, I'll check back later and see what the thread looks like then when I read it from the top. Probably, assuming all goes according to plan, around 2200 -6 GMT, I'll read it again and I'll send 'em at least one donation.
Now if only I could think of something appropriately offensive to say. Can I say "Injun Cracker Nigger?" I am, after all, a mix of all three.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, I think the population of NZ was only like 320 men at that time. ;-) They're not really covered in a lot of media and my memory is pretty fuzzy. So, I'll see what I can remember...
The ANZAC forces were a phenomenal asset. It must have been tough, emotionally, as many of them were brought away from their home soil at the same time Japan was heading their direction. Many people don't know how close Japan got to landing on Oz. Had Japan landed on Oz, things would have been bad. I want to say that Oz had some reservists who fought a rear-guard action off on Papua New Guinea?
Fortunately, the USMC was on the way. They and the USN, depleted though they were, managed to fend them off with a bit of help from some of the island folks who helped keep the Japanese busy. Quite a few Marines ended up in Oz for training and then they did some R&R and some hurry up and wait on Oz later in the war. The first (maybe) island that the Marines landed on was just north of Oz. I don't remember the name of that one either and I'm way too lazy to look.
But, what little there was for ANZAC troops got pulled away to North Africa, India, Hong Kong, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, and even to sit idle (for a spell) in in the British Isles. It was probably a good choice. They were lacking equipment and training. The US was already on the way by the time Japan was really speeding down towards that direction.
It was fairly well known that Japan was starting to spread themselves thin. It was also a bit of a risk that they took because if Japan had managed to land troops on Australia it would have been a pain in the ass to get them out of there and, worse, they'd have continued their abhorrent behaviors. The soldiers were a despicable group of people and it's odd that people try to make excuses for them. (As an aside, my own country and some citizens have done plenty of despicable things and I'm offended by their behavior and call it out when I can.)
Another thing that lots of people don't seem to know is really how close Japan came... I know I already mentioned it but they actually bombed a port and a town in N. Oz. (I forget the name, I think it might begin with the letter M? Port M.?) The citizens had about a dozen rifles or something like that between them. They had few vehicles. They were ordered to run away, as I recall. They'd already dug a bunch of holes and made bomb shelters but they were told to run away - I'm pretty sure. I seem to recall at least one documentary that mentions strafing but I might be conflating it with another attack.
Meh, I'm too lazy to Google. If you're unaware and are curious, I'm sure Google knows the rest of the story and can fix any mistakes in my memory. That should be fairly close to accurate. In all probability, someone knows the rest of the details.
You might be on to something. 'Cause I did pay attention in school and now that you point that out - it makes some sense. While you're certainly not "right" with the hyperbole, you're close enough. I'm pretty sure "all the people" can't actually be wrong. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
As near as I can tell, they'll throw the label "communism" on anything. They'll do the same for "socialism." They'll do the same thing for "fascism." Oh, wow!
That makes me curious...
Of the three (or pick your own) which do you think is the most abused or misunderstood? I'd say "Libertarianism" but that doesn't count because the Libertarians give off some very mixed messages and that's a case where the word's definition is actually starting to really change (and not in a good way). So, I can't say that one. I'll have to go with "Fascist." I think that one gets overused more than any of the others. Sadly, even though it's being used more often than the others - I think it's also more likely to be used incorrectly.
"No, I don't think anyone should be allowed to buy closed source software. Nobody should even be allowed to make it. You're a fascist for saying that people should be allowed to make that choice!"
"You pay for music? You are a boot-licking, fascist, authoritarian, goose-stepping, GeStaPo pig fucker and, if I see you on the street, I will spit on your face and then stab your children to death with a fucking rusty railroad spike, you retarded Nazi fuck!"
You know, while I can't reach and grab an immediate citation for those - I dare say they're almost verbatim to some of the comments I've read. I'm not even joking. I do wish I were joking but I am not. I'm not even trying to be funny.
So, which do you think it abused and/or used most in the least correct manner?
"You think that it's okay for a business to make a profit so long as they're following the laws and paying all their taxes? You want to poison the rivers, kill the babies, put lead back into paint, throw away the EPA, and give the keys to the kingdom to the corporations! Go to Somalia, a Libertarian paradise, you fascist fuck!"
I don't think that's verbatim but I've seen similar to that about a billion and three times this week alone. Alright, that might be a slight exaggeration. But, not much of one... What's eerie is that the person who makes those types of statements has a good chance of getting moderated up. Maybe it's just my own dictionary that's broken and my teachers gave us bad definitions.
Thanks for the additional info and for the clarification. You actually just confirmed, sort of, something that I was confused about. How to explain this or ask this?
Back in the 1980s, I had my clearance because I transported detainees. I was already a driver so they sent me to school to become a chaser/escort. (I was in the Marines.) Because I had to deal with certain types of records that may be classified, because I had to physically handle them, I had to get my clearance. Even though they were often in sealed envelopes (I had no need to know) and there were occasional bits that were classified, I never *did* anything with those records other than transport them and maybe observe them, heard them read aloud, etc. As an escort/chaser, I do not leave my prisoner alone and unattended, that may include even being present while they communicate with council - I can not be called to testify, I could not be a witness for or against.
I got out and had to re-apply in 1999. This time it was to work as a civilian, as a contractor, on a project. I'm given to understand that that's not actually required any longer? I have no idea but I had to re-apply as it had been longer than ten years since my initial approval. I have been told by someone claiming to have their clearance that they no longer need to reapply even if they've been idle/uninvolved for ten years. Actually, I could have sworn that it was not even ten years but seven? That's not really important but I wasn't sure if they were being dishonest. 'Cause I *know* I had to get my clearance and fill the forms out a second time in 1999. I am not sure if it was 10 or 7 years but, either way, it had been longer than 10 years so that's immaterial to me.
However... Here's the strange thing. I could have sworn that, at least when you're dealing with mixed classification data (for example, prisoner case/trial documents) if you're not sure then it defaults to classified. That anything near, around, similar, or whatnot - it was all considered classified unless not expressly marked. It was all handled as if it was classified. That's not the most articulate description, sorry. But, even though some prisoners, the majority actually, had no classified data in their court paperwork - all data was handled as if it was.
Now it gets slightly less clear... Oh, and I could have sworn that, at one time, "unclassified" was actually a classification itself? But, that's a whole other topic even though it's related.
Next, I had no choice but to work with mixed data. This was very, very much a case of a classified paperclip type of deal. This was a case where a certain data set was quite expressly classified as secret, some was unclassified, and some was classified as FOUO. Now here's the kicker - once they "touched" the results were considered classified. Except, I think they call them classification officers? Something like that... Except, once they got hold of it, quite a bit of it ended up unclassified. (Boy would it have been damned stupid for it to remain classified, I can't say what I'd done but I can say that would have been the exact opposite of what my goal was.)
At any rate, in that instance too - things defaulted to classified. They were later unclassified by the classification officer. The thing is, it was classified by default. Basically the training was and rules were, "Assume secret until told/marked otherwise. Even if not secret, consider it FOUO. Even if not FOUO, consider it need to know."
Sorry for the novella... It's not easy to explain all this. I'm not the most articulate. I seem to recall the protocol was the same if any record was misplaced - it was counted as spillage and treated as spillage. We made damned well sure to not misplace documents. I had a senior officer end up with an other-than-honorable for leaving a prisoner's records/trial documents on the front seat of a staff car while he went into the PX. We made damned sure to not misplace documents. He did not normally handle documents and was running the manila envelope acro
> Do you make a big deal about what kind of printer people use to print papers?
Personally? Nope. I do not. However, you can bet your ass that the people who print and publish think that sort of thing is very important. They want to know brand, model, model variations, value-adds, accessories, layout, layout equipment, assembly, assembly method, conveyor system, and they even want to know things like the ink and the brand of ink. And those aren't even the half of it. On top of that, they don't just want to know for themselves, they want to know what the rest of them are doing in the industry or in their individual shops.
They're actually quite keen on knowing that information.
Not that I don't get what (I think) you're trying to say but that's a horrible analogy, unless I'm missing something. I suppose it's possible that I'm missing something. It can and does happen. I don't actually know much about the printing industry but I did end up having to have to learn some few things about it. I actually own a part of a small printing house and was recently given the chance to invest in a second one. They are not a newspaper printing company (either one of them) but they both do print some newspapers.
Print is not dead - it's still alive and well. Newspapers aren't doing so well but print, in and of itself, isn't doing bad at all. I've already made back the money from the first investment (they wanted to buy some new equipment and the bank would not extend their credit, a similar situation with the second one but I've not yet said yes or no to that one) and I expect they'll be buying my share of the business back soon.
Seeing as I'm here and bored... Heh, I should link 'em. They do specialty orders and do online orders.
They print specialty stuff and can work with some fancy papers now. They're not a huge outfit or anything. They've located themselves into what was a shoe factory. They only rent half of it but they've got four machines now and all four do a few things differently though there's some overlap. They don't just print but they also bind. They can work on fancy card stock, parchment type stuff, and things like that. They've got one piece of equipment, made in Germany, that they got not too long ago which is how I got involved. I guess it was about four years ago now. Anyhow, they can do fancy leather-bound books that look like they're old rough-cut paper. They're actually made of a recycled paper but they don't do the recycling themselves.
At any rate... That's a horrible analogy!!! ;-) There are some people who really, really want to know what type of printer was used. Some of them are really neat. You can print there on that machine, but it's slower and more expensive, so you can "break" it and cut out a part of the process and just print it on a different machine and then skip that whole first section and feed the now-printed stock into it. At that point, you almost don't even touch it. It cuts it or folds it. It can sew it or glue it. It attaches a cover. You can insert things in multiple places and even make a partial loop so things go back around and get more added to it cumulatively before it goes to the next stage which would be binding.
After binding, you can actually get another chunk to this system and it will pack them, wrap them, count them, and even can inspect them (to some degree). It can stitch and hot-glue the bindings. It's all really kind of neat and all sorts of fancy. You can add to it and grow it as you grow your printing company. The way it is now, it can take 2 to 8 people to fully operate it. It could go as low as one operator (more a tender) or you can get them to stretch whole building lengths I guess. I've seen it and seen it in action and got to see what it looked like during the install.
I just did a quick Google and I can't find the name of the manufacturer. They're from Germany, I know that much. It's green. That's probably not that helpful. But, it's mostly green, some gray, a few monitors and inputs, and
Didn't Citizen's United make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose?
No.*
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.
Yes.
* No. Citizen's United v. FCC (assuming that's what you're talking about) in 2007 is often misrepresented and there's a lot of misinformation about the case and the ruling. As I'm unable to guess what you believe to be true (but can infer that you don't actually understand the case or the ruling), all I can do is suggest that you take a few minutes to get to understand it. It's one of those things that people seem keen on lying about and lots of people don't bother actually doing the research themselves. Instead of looking, they just believe what they're told. Why they'd want to listen to people frothing at the mouth and with a history of dishonesty is beyond me.
If you're actually curious, you can do some reading at Wikipedia. I've not bothered reading the article but, if it's like many others, I'd use it as a jump-off point and then find some more information. It's a little complicated but it's not terribly difficult to get the gist. However, I can assure you that it doesn't actually "make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose." No, not even remotely.
Actually, I've got a free minute or ten. Let me see what I can find that's actually readable and accurate.
First the Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is objective and appears to be factual: http://missoulian.com/news/opi...
*ALL* the information: http://www.scotusblog.com/case...
The second link is probably the better of the two, for simple layman's understanding, and then the Wiki is "fine" for a good read for more information. However, if you really want the meat of the ruling then the final link is ideal. That link has lots of other links to read the ruling, amicus briefs, opinions from the courts, the actual documents, and things like that. It's a lot to digest, I've actually read some of it. SCOTUSblog is one of my favorite sites and I check/refer to it often. It's surprisingly handy.
Over the years, I've noticed that people are keen on being dishonest, lying by omission, misrepresenting, and intentionally advocating incorrect inferences. Often it's the loudest and most zealous people who do that, sometimes even going far enough to fabricate data. Rather than take them at their word, rather than rely on journalists, rather than rely on popular opinion, I've just made the effort to go find out the facts (as much as I can). I'd like to say it works well but I don't think it really does because it does nothing to actually help encourage others to do the same.
Two things, neither of which is important and then some conversational gibberish that's not really important at all.
1. Trump is bought and paid for. He's bought and paid for himself. That's a good or a bad thing, depending on your view.
I've been paying attention and it's very clear, as I've said multiple times, that I'm a Sanders supporter. I'm also pretty damned left (by US politics) but for vastly different reasons than the Dems.
2. And, as I've been paying attention, I've noticed there's actually an almost sane/reasonable candidate on the Rep side. I kid you not... His name is Rubio. You gotta ignore the media and actually listen to what he says and read about how he has been in the past. He's not that bad. I'm sure as hell not going to vote for him but I can understand others doing so. He's moderate, fiscally conservative, and not a religious zealot.
He's got some reasonable ideas, an acceptable history, and he seems to understand things like privacy. He's not horrible. I can (from what I've come across so far - remember that nobody is perfect, not even me) even understand people supporting him.
Like I can't actually understand why people are supporting Hillary. I can understand why people are supporting Trump but I don't agree with them. That's okay. I don't have to agree. I can understand the Bernie supporters - and I agree with them *AND* agree with Bernie. I can understand the Rubio supporters and agree with them - to some extent. At the very least, I can understand their perspective and why they hold the views that they do hold.
At any rate, I'm not an expert or anything. I didn't really start paying any attention to him at all until about a month ago and have only been watching him for the past couple of weeks with a bit more intensity. (It sometimes takes me a while before I make up my mind. I like to get more information.) But, I've been kind of paying attention to him a bit more and he's not that bad. He gets some pretty shitty press.
I've touched on this once before but he's really not that bad. I'd much, much rather Sanders. I'm pretty sure they'd never do it but I've been pondering this since a conversation the other day - a Sanders/Rubio ticket might actually be interesting, I've also speculated that a Sanders/Trump ticket would be amusing.
Finally, I've generally been voting third party for 40 years of votes now. Yup. I've been throwing my vote away on third party candidates since 1976. Almost every vote that I've ever cast has been for someone from as far outside the system as possible. Yes, I'm aware that I'm throwing my vote away. I'm okay with that. I figure if more of us do it then they'll eventually notice the trend and the number crunchers will start recommending more third party candidates. The number of people voting third party has been increasing, albeit slowly, so it might happen. I'll probably be dead and gone before it happens (I'm getting pretty old) but there's a chance that it happens in my lifetime.
Are you certain that the data, once collected, isn't considered classified? I was under the impressions that the records were classified... It has been a *long* time since the training and the whole process. Early 2000s was when I went through it for that program and I've had nothing to do with anything of that nature since the end of 2003. I'm kind of annoyed that they'd retained the data but I'll be (hopefully) all good. I already have the 'do not issue credit' flag set as the records are locked at the credit reporting agencies. Regardless, it's mostly just annoying.
Oh, and no... No, I really don't think the data needed to be classified as secret in my case. I wasn't really working with anything that special. At the time, we all pretty much agreed that FOUO would have been fine. I suspect you probably worked with more significant data. I modeled traffic, vehicular and pedestrian, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not allowed to elaborate on what I did specifically.
It was a neat process. We had to use their hardware. I have no idea what they did with it when we were gone. And yes, I believe I know what you mean by air-gapped and that it might be debated. I'm inclined to agree with your definition, it works for me. We had two systems, the first had regular(ish) access. Hmm... You know? I don't think I'm actually at liberty to discuss the second one? I can say that data was often transferred physically but that options were available. I'm not actually sure what I can say about it and, equally important, I don't even know the technical details.
The physical access was kind of unusual. We had cell phones then but I don't think we had cameras in them. Even if we did, it wasn't allowed. We weren't even allowed to bring the phones in. No cameras at all. No discs could be brought in. No compute devices - that included my little Palm. We were subject to physical searches at any time and on entrance and egress. There was a bit more to it but I'm not actually sure I can disclose that.
Chances are pretty good that you're more familiar with it than I, have done so more recently than I, and are probably more aware of whatever changes have been made in the interim.
No, no it's not hate speech. Even if such a thing (hate speech) existed, it is not that
There is no such thing as hate speech. There's just speech. How you interpret it and what you do in response to it is up to you. Rather than try to muzzle others, block your ears.
I don't have a dog in this fight but you point out spelling and then call him a juvenile. You call it juvenile name calling. You then call them a loser.
Yet, I bet you feel like you're better than they are. We can probably infer your political affiliation. As the adult in the room, I'd like to point out that you're reaping what you sowed.
At any rate... Do you not see the irony in your answer? And no, don't try the "it was intentional!" thing.
Hmm... Maybe I'm missing something. How are you defining communism? Also, how are you defining freedom?
Nah man, rogue waves are just a part of thieves cant.
That looks like a link to the Caspian Sea Monster. IIRC, that was from the 1960s. Rogue Waves weren't well understood at the time because very few had observed them and lived to tell about them. I seem to recall having learned that, until not that long ago, they were believed to not even be real but exaggerated stories from fisherman and sketchy sailors.
I dunno what you know about them but I know that I know very little about them other than what I've seen in a couple of documentaries. So, unless you know something I don't know - I'm thinking an untimely run-in between a Rogue Wave and a ground-effect craft is gonna be problematic.
It appears that this is a new algorithm, that's the terminology. Regardless of any audio history, the algorithm wasn't known prior. It is now known. Thus, we call it new.
In my humble opinion, it's not new. It has always been there. It has just been uncovered, discovered, inferred, revealed, or whatever. The algorithm doesn't care if we know about it or not. It just exists. However, that's a rather long-winded way to express it and will likely confuse the folks on the short bus. So, "new" is gonna have to do unless you want really long-winded/verbose press-releases.
> and even in the US, military related things get stolen by hackers all the time- just not classified stuff.
I'm pretty sure all of our data that was taking in the OPM attack is considered classified. I suspect classified data gets stolen more often than they tell us about it. Hell, it probably happens more often than they know about it.
As an aside; I've worked on an airgapped system. It's a kind of neat process. It was a little frustrating and I'm not sure that the data I was working with needed to be considered classified but they didn't actually want or ask for my advise on the subject. We couldn't even use our own hardware.
Correction accepted. Err... I don't tweet much. Read, never. I don't actually have an account. No, I don't have a Facebook, MySpace, or any other accounts of that nature. I'm kind of a slacker these days.
At any rate, twits sounds an appropriate name for the users - if the general consensus and antics I read about are to be believed. Though, I guess, life's probably a lot easier when you're able to reduce your thoughts and opinions into 140 characters. I've found life to be a bit too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.
Thursday, August 2nd.
It's a fine spot to start. Click on citations and read the source material and then dig down from there. It's literally one of the best places to start on the internet. You start there, you then follow it back or forward, and think for yourself. If you can't use Wikipedia as a good start that speaks more to you than it does to them. It's full of excellent search terms to find source material on other sites, it lists dates so that you an find newspaper articles that might not be listed, it has citations so that you can check it for balance, names, and locations and do more research from there.
We're never going to agree on this and you've provided no reasons for me to change my view. Just because you go to Wikipedia and stop there isn't my fault. It's a fine place to start, you just have to be less lazy and able to think for yourself. It's a great jump-off point. It's a horrible end-point. The problem is those who use it as an end point as opposed to a tool to find more information, original sources, and actual information that's not slanted with opinions. Be less lazy? It's worth noting that you offered no alternative. It's a fine place to start, it's a damned stupid place to stop.
As interesting tangent...
I'm listening to news radio. It turns out that Samsung just managed to win in court. Two patents were ruled as invalid and one was ruled as non-infringing. This will obviously be appealed.
At any rate, I want to hope that there's no connection and that they're being given justice in their other court cases but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the judge just figured he'd make life a little more difficult for Apple. Maybe they were directed to do so, to show them who is in charge or similar. I hope not but, sadly, that wouldn't even remotely surprise me.
And no, I'm not saying that there is a connection - just that it wouldn't surprise me. I imagine that if someone wants a story to go green, this might be a valid subject. I don't submit much and I'm pretty lazy. This was not the rounded corner, design patent, case. This was about automatically linking URLs, slide to unlock, and some push something or other. Two were found invalid and the other's sure to be appealed - I didn't memorize it.
It'd be sad but not surprising.
They get a pass because we're biased, illogical, unreasonable, and human. Don't blame me, I'm glad I'm not a human!
Yeah, it was kind of odd. I'm not sure if NZ declared war on their own or not. I recall that India did not, they were covered as they were still in the UK. There were a few other (I can't help but call 'em this) colonies that fell into the same line. I want to say that Canada did not declare war on their own either?
As an aside, I'm sure you know this but someone else might come across our conversation, it's impressive to see what was done by Canada and Canadians during WWI and WWII. They're often overlooked in the books and movies. They've really contributed so much. I've had the opportunity to train and serve with them in joint activities. I don't normally have many bad things to say about anyone but I've got nothing bad to say about my experiences in having done so.
I'm thinking you missed the whole "good place to start." If you're curious, you didn't ask, I find it reprehensible when anyone does it. These are not free speech zones inside the convention hall. They're outside, pushed at a distance, and restricting the use of public property. Now *that* is something that perturbs me. Inside the venue, that's private property (usually). Outside, on the street, is not. That the government allows this is disheartening. That you liken it to physical security is disingenuous.
At any rate, the "good place to start" is the key part of that. I should probably stop expecting people to read all the words that I write. I do tend to say things too complex to fit on a bumper and they surely don't fit in a Twit. (I'm thinking Twit is singular.) So, I guess it's not entirely unlikely that you'd miss some of the words.
While you're correct in my case, with that specifically, you'd be surprised at what some of us have in our home server closets. I have two racks in mine but nothing fancy like that. I even have a small, but older now, blade server from HP. I have the conduit for fiber but haven't put it in yet. I'd do it but I don't know how to do the connections and splicing. I've played around with it on a friend's work equipment but I'm not actually any good at it.
It's also important to note that BYU is private and thus is not actually subject to *some* of the restrictions that are in place at a public institution. That might seem to be little different and I'd agree that they're morally similar. However, the other is a question of legality and a rather basic enumerated right. The similarity ends there.
Apologies if BYU is not private because I'm too lazy to go look but I'm pretty sure they are.
I don't like Trump, as I'm sure you know, but I've actually listened to his speeches (some of them) and I'm pretty sure he's not guilty of that. Oh, he's close to guilty of that - he's walking a damned fine line. But, I don't think he's guilty of that. I'm not even sure his goal is intimidation.
And I have listened. The reason(s) I listened were many and I was going to listen anyhow. I was going to listen even if just to point out the problems. And there are lots of problems to point out.
One of the things that gets thrown out about Trump is that he's sounding like a Fascist. He really isn't. Not he, himself. However, listen to some of his followers and fans? Now *they* sound like what I picture a modern fascist to sound like. Or, at risk of Godwinning, Hitler. Trump doesn't sound like Hitler. His fans kind of sound like Hitler's fans. Then again, they have a lot of similarities with the rabid Obama fans.
I've also noticed a trend to take much of what he says out of context. I don't actually know why they bother. Trust me, it's horrible enough without the need to exaggerate or take things out of context.
You know what? That was well written and I need an excuse. So, there's another donation for FIRE. I put a little check mark down on an index card next to me. I'm going to reread this thread later. I'm gonna keep making check marks, I hope, and then I'm gonna donate a few bucks for every one of 'em.
Why? Because (this is NOT directed at you, obviously) fuck those guys who'd squash speech. I don't even have much of anything offensive to say. However, I damned well want to retain the right to say offensive things if I should change my mind. Seriously, fuck 'em in ass with a red-hot poker.
Hmm... Actually, I should go through and make a donation to FIRE for every post that is *for* stifling speech. But, that'd only encourage you clever people to say things along that line. So, no... I'm on to you guys and your sneaky ways! At any rate, I'll check back later and see what the thread looks like then when I read it from the top. Probably, assuming all goes according to plan, around 2200 -6 GMT, I'll read it again and I'll send 'em at least one donation.
Now if only I could think of something appropriately offensive to say. Can I say "Injun Cracker Nigger?" I am, after all, a mix of all three.