Doesn't that argument break down when you get to software or am I missing something?
Let's use, for one example (and note that you said "all"), and go with Microsoft's Office suite. Now, I've not used it in a long time but I seem to recollect that not even they conformed to their own standard document format when creating files with Word. Their email uses proprietary storage. Their spreadsheet uses proprietary formats. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
They are the dominant office suite - across the globe. Yes, others have made some inroads but they are, very much, the preeminent platform for office productivity suites.
That's just one example. Adobe springs to mind as another.
I'm usually able to count on your posts as being factual, insightful, and correct and that means I'm probably missing something and not understanding you properly. If you get a minute, will you hit me with a clue stick 'cause I'm not getting it.
The end game? There is no end. It's a cycle, at least that's what I'm seeing with all of the history that I've consumed.
Something about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time and with the blood of patriots...
There will, eventually, be a step too far. It's one of the reasons that I'm so disturbed by people who advocate allowing their government to disarm them, for their own safety... It's as if they don't or won't admit that liberty comes with a price and that price is a lack of safety. Freedom contains inherent safety risks. There has to be a blend of liberty and safety and I don't think it's possible to keep that at the optimal level so long as the government makes new regulations.
Here...
For better or worse; Every single law is a restriction on someone's liberties. Now, this is not always a bad thing. When we outlawed slavery, we not only allowed slaves their freedom but we also took away the slave owner's right to own slaves. It's hard to argue that that wasn't a good thing. But it's also important to note that enacting that law did take away someone's rights. Taking away rights isn't always a bad thing.
However, we've taken away a lot of rights and every law is just another removal of rights. Yet, the government's primary purpose seems to be the creation of more laws which, logically, results in said government taking away more rights. A fantastic session would be one where they returned not with new laws but with striking some of the old ones from the books.
That's not going to happen. So, you end up with greater and greater restrictions on your rights as time passes. Things build up, pressure builds, there's either a voluntary change of power, a revolution, or a civil war.
The tree of liberty is refreshed by the blood of patriots and the cycle begins anew.
Instead of ensuring that doesn't happen, we've grown fat, lazy, and distracted. It's our fault as much as it is theirs. When was the last time you spent a vacation day observing the courts to see if they were upholding the spirit of the law? When was the last time you petitioned for redress? When was the last time you spent your time and effort communicating with a legislator in person? When was the last time you even attended a public meeting or visited your town hall?
It's not just you... It's most of us.
And so, the cycle continues, the rights get stripped, the people snap, the revolution happens, and we begin all over again - each time thinking we're the pinnacle of civilization and humanity. Each time we think we're correct and that we've finally got the answers. Each time we KNOW we're right and that other guy is wrong.
Oddly enough, the wheels keep spinning. I'm surprised we've not completely eradicated the species.
See, yes, you and I shortened "applications" to "apps" all those years ago. We were "installing apps" and "writing apps." We were "working with apps" and "managing apps."
Alas, today, they've gone and changed the common usage definition and what we call apps are now referred to by their full name - namely applications. Some of us are a bit more specific and we'll call them "phone apps" or "mobile apps." I think we're in the minority.
This appears to happen quite a bit. See the RC enthusiasts who are, through no fault of their own, no longer piloting RC model aircraft but are "drone operators."
Another example is I'm a Libertarian. Except, now that refers to the hard right instead of the loony left. I'm much more in common with a Socialist than I have in common with the caricature that most envision when I say that I'm a Libertarian. They automatically assume that I'm a Randian and it's a whole lot of work to show them the difference - they simply weren't alive, didn't know, or haven't learned that there's much more to it.
So, we're kind of old (some of us) and to us, apps is short for application. We difference them by saying mobile apps or even mobile applications. To others, probably too young or too uneducated, they aren't aware of the history and so they see "apps" and drop the "mobile" (which was, I think, in common usage earlier in time) and think that anything called an "app" is specifically for a mobile platform.
We can go with the flow, argue it, be confused, try to teach them, or just continue talking amongst ourselves. I try to reference them as "mobile apps" if need be. Given my distaste for most mobile platforms, that's seldom a concern. I've tried - I've bought quite a few tablets... I just can't appreciate the platform for anything other than consumption and I'm not even overly fond of that. Oddly, I don't mind my phone for some types of content consumption. I'll use it to read and even comment on a site. I have no use for a tablet. I'm going to try again with a Surface Pro but I am going to make sure that I can install Ubuntu on one before I bother wasting my time.
Then again, it will probably get used if I buy one. I bought one for the missus for the holiday and the kids seemed to both like them. I suspect that they'd abscond with one and make good use of it if I bought it and found that I didn't like it even with Ubuntu loaded. The missus prefers Linux these days but seems genuinely happy with the Surface. I've poked at it and I'm reasonably impressed with the speed, layout, display, and accuracy of the inputs. I'd still rather it have Ubuntu on it.
Interestingly enough, I'm vaguely familiar with the project you mention and the two aren't really dissimilar but they're not exactly the same either. Those were, as far as I know, much closer to the source and were a bit more fine tuned than the seismometers that this is referencing.
That said, an interesting aside - and continuation, the devices that you placed were not always placed by hand. Some were dropped along the sides of the trails by airplane and helicopters. The Viet Minh knew about some of them and found some of them. They'd often then do things like move the sensors or create noise to deliberately mislead those listening to the sensors.
I am not certain but I also recollect reading about them being in use in Laos and Cambodia during that same time period and along the borders where the NVA also would travel but not specifically along the Ho Chi Minh trails. I'd speculate that there is much to this story that I've not heard and that there were probably additional uses then and now. I find it hard to believe that the entirety of the truth has been told.
So, for their effectiveness, I can say that I have read (and seen in at least one documentary) that the Viet Minh/Cong/NVA knew something about them and made use of them to confuse trackers and mask movements. I seem to recall reading about some of them being put in place by some LRP forces but I may be conflating two separate programs at this point and can only guess that the two are somehow related (though they sound similar).
Finally, I'm not entirely certain which one would contain it (there are something like 65 episodes, each about an hour long) but there's a documentary series called "Secrets of War." It's not the greatest of series but it does have some unique and interesting points. I'm not positive but I think that one of their episodes about the Vietnam War contained a few blurbs about this program that the AC is referencing.
I've not heard much about the program, only tidbits here and there, which is one of the reasons that I think that I'm probably not getting all the information. Most of the information that I'm able to recollect is presented and relayed by the NVA. In other words, not many people speak of and seem to know of this program. Thus, for once, I'm inclined to actually believe the AC is telling the truth or as much of the truth as they're allowed to tell.
I'm inclined to agree. This is much more interesting than folks here seem to think. Maybe it's just me but I love tech news and this certainly qualifies. Anyone who claims that they expected or knew this, prior to this article, is full of shit or better have their names on this paper or some other article that predates this. I am, by no means, even remotely an expert but I've watched a shitton of documentaries over the years - many had segments on detecting things with a seismometer, and nothing indicated that they were at the point where they'd be able to detect things like this.
Hell, I remember them being reasonably surprised that they could triangulate to find underground nuke tests.
At any rate, to expand on this - at least in my head, it'd be interesting when we can not use this for forensic discovery but monitor things in real time and make accurate real-time interpretations and/or predictions based on the signals. I imagine that some deep machine learning, neural network, or AI type things might be applicable here. Alas, I am no guru and can only speculate but I'd not be surprised if we had that kind of compute horsepower available for fairly reasonable costs.
That's probably covered in their charter. Without taking the time to research it and going by memory, well... They were communicating overseas. That alone puts this within their realm - unless I'm missing something. Even if the President himself were to make a phone call to a dog living in Zanzibar, the information would be subject to scooping, mining, indexing, listening, archiving, and analytics.
For better or worse, that's kind of what they do. Had these been communications between two parties, both on US soil, then this would be against the rules. This next part is one I'm not sure of but I'm pretty sure I have this correct; Had the communications been between two parties, one on use soil and the other at the US embassy in Israel, then it would have been illegal - probably. As it was probably not a direct line but was routed through various nodes, specifically those not on US soil, then it may have still been subject to monitoring while still remaining within the scope of the NSA's charter.
I am not entirely certain how that last one works but that's probably how they interpret it. As far as I know, that's never had a ruling to establish precedent and I can only speculate. As mentioned before, I spent some time as an embassy guard and we had to learn a little about what was and what was not considered territorial assets. We did have some, limited, training on both US law and international law where sensitive data was concerned but this was not something we covered.
At any rate, no matter who you are - if you're communicating with someone who is not on US soil then you're potentially being monitored (legally) by the NSA. Even if you're speaking to a Head of State, a dog, or a computer with your computer. Note: I am not saying that this is acceptable, I am not condoning this, nor am I judging it. This is just my interpretation of the regulations as I know them.
That said, Obama claimed that the NSA would not be spying on friendly countries. This was a while back and wasn't very specific. Unless he handed down, by executive order, something to limit the NSA's surveillance to a limited group of countries then this probably is not a legally binding statement and was purely political in motivation and effect.
Also, this is (probably) neither treason nor sedition. This is probably not in violation of the Logan Act. They elected officials are free to confer with any group of people. They are not free to create a treaty on their own. They are free to seek council, opinion, and information from any source they wish. I'd like to keep it that way as it means you and I can also be those sources. Reality might be different but the idea of preventing them from seeking council from any source they wish is abhorrent and rather contrary to the idea of freedom of speech and association. Even congresscritters are entitled to those enumerated rights.
Finally, I'd speculate that there's probably an argument to be made that anything said should be property of the government (and by extension, we the people) and open to review and publication (depending on the sensitivity and classification status). Considering that it was likely about the governance then we should be privy to it - depending on its classification status. Or, at least, there's an argument to be made for such. I'm not entirely certain on what laws would be applicable and what falls into the public information category in these regards. It's a bit too complicated and I've not researched that. Given the information that I do have, I'm inclined to believe that such communications should be, in part or in full, available to the public by means of a FOIA request which would necessitate storage and retrieval systems.
Theoretically, the government is what stops me from taking your stuff and doing what I want to you. Reality will probably bear that out. The idea that an anarchy can exist, in a peaceful and free state, is laughably naive. See, for evidence, times and places where the rule of law have broken down.
Yes, I know you're aware of that but I figured I'd make a feeble attempt at flushing it out a little for those who might otherwise be confused.
Heh... I wondered if anyone would comment and try to fix this misconception that seems to permeate this thread.
No, they're well within their bounds, as you said. I'm not sure why so many people here think they're qualified to opine on matters of law or believe they're constitutional scholars. They did not, from reading, attempt to actually create a treaty. They're free to consult with foreign nations - they can consult with pretty much anyone.
Alas, we're full of constitutional scholars and legal professionals on this site. It's akin to me trying to tell people, here, how to properly program in Java. (I know not one damned bit of Java.)
The born again Christians that I'm familiar with make no such claims. In fact, they quote some scripture (which I'm unfamiliar with and too lazy to look up) that states that nobody knows the date or time when such will happen. I suspect you know this (there's no excuse not to). Why would you make such a broad claim?
He is saying it is not for him, it's too complicated for him, and that he thinks nobody should use it. I'm not sure why they feel inclined to opine on something that is neither meant for them nor will be used by them. They've made it quite clear that they're not from the US but they feel compelled to say that NYC shouldn't do this. No, I do not understand the motivation.
Oddly, some of those rules do make sense in the real world. I'd hate to live by them but that's probably because I don't actually have to worry about making a living.
Thanks for the link. 'Twas an interesting read. I'm not much for television but I've seen a few of those shows. I do like certain videos but not television, if that makes sense. I love documentaries - to the point where it's probably an obsession. I just don't like commercials, intros, credits, and the likes. I don't really need a bunch of effects or anything but sometimes those come in handy. Sometimes I watch regular movies but not very often.
Yup. The thumbs NEVER wrap around the steering wheel. Ever. Thumbs out! Mine typically have the four finger wrapped around, to some extent, and the thumb resting or nearly resting on the front of the wheel. If you ever take an advanced driving class, like a racing school, they'll teach you the same thing. It's not unheard of for thumbs to actually get ripped off - or so I'm told.
A Saab, eh? I had (blown engine and just not bothered replacing it) a 900S Turbo set up to rally. It was complete with the roll cage, seats, five point harness, helmets, and the likes. I really need to tear it down, remove the skid plate, and salvage the cage. I could put a new engine in it but I'm actually considering a Quantum or Quatro instead.
Oddly, I was just having a conversation about this with another poster a day or so ago.
At any rate, no power steering is a good thing, in my humble opinion. If you have power steering and it breaks then it is actually more difficult to steer than a vehicle designed without it. It's an unnecessary point of failure. The HMMWV has power steering and it had some issues but they've ironed them out to the best of my knowledge. I'd have preferred that it be designed without it. If I recall correctly, it has backup lines and the steering ratio is not so high that it makes it too difficult should the pump fail. However, it has been a lot of years since then.
The lighting on the HMMWV wasn't the greatest either, now that I think about it. It wasn't terrible and we never brought extra bulbs with us. When they were covered with the blackout slits it was rather tough but other than that it was okay, I guess. It's not like they had high intensity discharge lamps like the BMWs or anything but they weren't too bad. You're also seated pretty high and the lights are fairly high off the ground so I guess I can't really complain.
I very much want to take one of these VLRAs for a spin. They look rugged and very utilitarian. They look like they might even make a fair weapons platform. Perhaps someone can modify one to fire frozen eggs?;-) (I could so see that being mounted on a bar on the top. Even a swivel connection shouldn't be too hard to engineer.) With pre-filled cartridges, well... I'm pretty sure that, if done safely, there's no way that can not result in a good time.
It was all so very exciting and, really, it has been rather dull for the last few decades. Sure, there were great things - like ISS, Hubble, and the likes. There were tragedies and much was learned. I remember the first time the Shuttle went up and hoping that was going to usher in a new age, it did not.
Yet, seeing that "simple" thing of the first stage not only landing but landing so perfectly and so close to exactly on the X brought back some of the same feelings and levels of excitement (and dreams, and hope) that I had as a child. It was a sight to behold. Unfortunately, I did not witness it live but I was able to catch the video shortly after that. I've since downloaded and archived the video. I've even watched it a few more times.
Maybe, just maybe, we're finally going somewhere. Even if it's a slow start, still - this might be an actual tipping point. (Allow an old man his feeble dreams. Err... Except I'm just 58.) Maybe, when historians look back, they'll see this as a pivotal change that meant great things happened because of it. Maybe, as you say, we're finally going somewhere.
At any rate, the pajamas were awesome. They were a kind of blue with astronauts floating around on them. You could tell that they had been made prior to the finalization of the suits because they ended up with a more accurate depiction on later versions of those pajamas. They had those vinyl covered feet things and I'd run and slide across the floor on 'em. In my kid brain, those were valid exercises to prepare myself for the hardships and to demonstrate that I had the right stuff.
Sure, it is kind of silly in reflection and probably would be embarrassing to admit for some people but I'm not easily embarrassed and I think it may serve some of the younger folks well to know the kind of excitement we had and what led us into fields like science, mathematics, engineering, and even made us interested in computers. So, perhaps it is a little embarrassing but it's worth it to put it out there for posterity. Someone might find it interesting and look into it and take an interest. Someone else may have a similar recollection (like yours) and add that to the pile. Who knows?
I'm inclined to agree. I really don't have a problem with speech until it turns into an action. Oh, in the US, libel and slander are civil offenses. You don't go to jail for civil offenses but you can go to jail for criminal offenses.
Erf... This is tough but I still prefer (I think?) to err on the side of freedom with both threats and harassment with some caveats. If you say that you're going to kill me - I'd absolutely hate for you to be prosecuted for that and would likely argue that on your behalf in a court of law. Why? It's not a realistic threat. You don't really have much of a chance to do that.
On the other hand, if you've said you're going to kill me and have taken the time to locate me and buy a plane ticket to come perform the deed - then you've taken an action. That's where I'd want that line drawn.
Harassment? Well... I just don't mind it, in and of itself. However, if that harassment (intentionally or not) results in others taking some action then I suppose some shared culpability needs to be considered. Again, I prefer to err on the side of freedom until such time as it reaches the point of action that may be harmful.
I'm not sure that I'm articulating that well. There are risks associated with those beliefs. It's quite possible that the threat or harassment turns into an action before there is time for intervention and prevention. Risks are inherent in a free system.
Also, the good thing about a host who will allow a platform such as the American Nazi Party is that they quite likely will allow you the same capacity to speak. As reprehensible as that group might be, I'm glad that they're allowed a platform.
Probably fairly accurate. I guess, what I find odd is that people continue to paint with a broad brush without actually taking the time to notice that there are some finer strokes to be made. To them, all Libertarians are Randian, anarcho-capitalistic, greedy, etc... There are a number of fine resources, for free, that explain that there are a whole host of variations.
By now, you're familiar with my posts and I with yours. I assume you are also aware that I'm willing to take criticism and hold my beliefs up to scrutiny. I say that in order to say this: I've put my beliefs up to scrutiny and have given an adequate defense. I'm comfortable with the logic and reasoning used to form these political beliefs. I've held them up to scrutiny *because* I wanted to ensure that these conclusions are logically sound.
So, yes... I expect people who opine to have taken the time to do a little bit of research. There are, by insinuation or overtly, a number of things applied to the pejorative use of the name and they aren't accurate. I don't see it as being much different than saying something akin to, "Jews are greedy."
Add to that my own biases, my expectations of people, and my frustrations and you get what you see here.
What's more frustrating is that my particular beliefs were actually held by the vast majority of folks in the party. Now? The party has been co-opted, usurped, and bastardized. At one point, we were the "loony left." Now, though I've not made any change, I'm the "greedy right" by association. I'd have much preferred the Randians to elect to use a different title. I'd much rather the ashamed Republicans form their own party instead of assuming this title without actually understanding the concept of liberty.
They are not so keen on liberty unless that liberty is for them and them alone. I am of the mind that the greatest liberty is one that is shared and a protected asset known as the commons. I think the more people have leisure and assets then the more they able to use their freedom to enjoy their liberties. Ah well...
Oh, for some clarification on the verbiage, I like to put it this way: I am free to kill you, I do not have the liberty to do so. I do not have the right to take the life of a fellow human being unless my freedom is in jeopardy. That is the context in which I use the words in this, and other, posts.
(Thank you again for making me think, clarify, and subject my beliefs to critical thinking.)
I'm loathe to do so but it may, finally, be time for me to change my self-identification. But, as someone who has been involved in the party for some 40 years or so, it's not easy to give that up. In our haste, we let anyone participate and speak for us. This was a mistake but it would be rather hypocritical of us to not allow it. We also should have spoken up against those who claimed to represent us. In our defense, we were probably high.
LOL I believe I said that it wasn't irony which is what you said... The second, I did not actually reach any conclusions and state if it was ironic or not. You said I got it wrong and then said what I said.
You're right - that's why I said it wasn't the same but that it amounted to the same thing. (Name the.reg key something you'll understand at a later date.) If you *really* wanted then you could probably just make a.reg and a.txt with the same name and put your comments in there but that seems like a lot of work.
You're most welcome and I got it when I re-read it. I've reasoned that you probably either have an interest or a background in law, based on the quality of your posts, and made a mental note. I also use the friends/foes list for that purpose or similar reasons.
Hmm... I think I might have noticed when you had explained the difference between the burdens of proof with civil and criminal matters. It might have been a "beyond all doubt" type of comment that you were responding to. Not too many people have taken the time to learn that or to learn that it is reasonable doubt and what reasonable doubt actually means.
So, your posts get flagged and I can learn something new - or at least get insight that I might not otherwise have had, by means of your post. So, really, thank you. I am no legal scholar but I did have the chance to get paid to spend time in a mock court and help the lawyers. I've also spent time observing the courts. I also have had to go to court for a variety of reasons. There's a lot to learn which makes it a fine subject.
That might be true but, and this is a question - I don't know, wouldn't you have to retrain it for new information such as new patterns where a human would not need training (necessarily) to be able to do the same when the patterns changed?
Hmm... You're more generous than I. Ah well... No holiday here yet. It's raining. Saturday night there's gonna be party. Everything is set to go. Even a couple of/.ers are to be in attendance.
I was reading your post wrong. My bad. I don't know if it's your choice of verbiage or my failure to comprehend. I'll submit that it is the latter. Reading it again makes it clear. I was wondering why you'd have said such a thing. I was pretty sure that there was something wrong with that picture. I generally rely on you to give good information - and you did. I just misread it.
Shouldn't the plaintiff have to prove guilt - as the defendant should be innocent until proven guilty?
Well, not proven guilty as this is likely a civil infraction at this point. So they'd only have to provide the preponderance of evidence in which they show that the defendant is, more likely than not, guilty of the offense charged by the plaintiff?
I'm kind of confused. I trust your judgment and have seen enough of your posts to safely accept them as relatively authoritative. Could you explain what I'm missing in this case? Innocence should the default, you should never have to prove you're innocent.
Heh... I'm (I admit) not that familiar with the series but I've seen a few episodes and parts of many other episodes. I thought that, quite specifically, you could trust them. I was under the impression that you could always count on them to uphold their end of the bargain but that their end of the bargain wasn't always what you thought you were agreeing to.
I thought they never, ever, did anything like go against the contract or agreement. The general idea was that you were to do that whole Caveat Emptor thing, make sure all the Ts were crossed and the Is dotted, make sure you had spelled out, specifically, the expectations and made sure that you also upheld your end of the bargain.
Basically, I was under the impression that you could always trust them to try to screw you over.
Call me skeptical but this sounds more like a lawyer who is going to intentionally cause some disruption, get sued, and then use the donations to pay for legal fees (providing an income) and maybe get them some fame (providing an income) even if they don't actually win their case.
"Oh, hi! I was doing this thing and I knew damned well that doing this was going to get me sued. If each of you help donate then we can fight this miscarriage of justice! We can thwart this hydra known as Paramount and the IP-cartels. All I need now, I just happen to be a lawyer, is some money to help keep this project afloat. You can send money by PayPal, BitCoin, Check, Money Order, or wire it directly to this account! Thank you for helping to keep this project alive and, keep in mind, if you donate this much money - we'll even try to ship a product and you'll get some bonus material if you help by donating even more money to our legal defense team!"
Yeah, I'm cynical, skeptical, jaded, disillusioned, disenfranchised, disgusted, pragmatic, and grouchy. However, it's rather convenient to have a lawyer on-board and one who mentions that they anticipated the lawsuit ahead of time. Perhaps there's some altruism, some shred of dignity, some actual intent to create...
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't that argument break down when you get to software or am I missing something?
Let's use, for one example (and note that you said "all"), and go with Microsoft's Office suite. Now, I've not used it in a long time but I seem to recollect that not even they conformed to their own standard document format when creating files with Word. Their email uses proprietary storage. Their spreadsheet uses proprietary formats. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
They are the dominant office suite - across the globe. Yes, others have made some inroads but they are, very much, the preeminent platform for office productivity suites.
That's just one example. Adobe springs to mind as another.
I'm usually able to count on your posts as being factual, insightful, and correct and that means I'm probably missing something and not understanding you properly. If you get a minute, will you hit me with a clue stick 'cause I'm not getting it.
The end game? There is no end. It's a cycle, at least that's what I'm seeing with all of the history that I've consumed.
Something about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time and with the blood of patriots...
There will, eventually, be a step too far. It's one of the reasons that I'm so disturbed by people who advocate allowing their government to disarm them, for their own safety... It's as if they don't or won't admit that liberty comes with a price and that price is a lack of safety. Freedom contains inherent safety risks. There has to be a blend of liberty and safety and I don't think it's possible to keep that at the optimal level so long as the government makes new regulations.
Here...
For better or worse; Every single law is a restriction on someone's liberties. Now, this is not always a bad thing. When we outlawed slavery, we not only allowed slaves their freedom but we also took away the slave owner's right to own slaves. It's hard to argue that that wasn't a good thing. But it's also important to note that enacting that law did take away someone's rights. Taking away rights isn't always a bad thing.
However, we've taken away a lot of rights and every law is just another removal of rights. Yet, the government's primary purpose seems to be the creation of more laws which, logically, results in said government taking away more rights. A fantastic session would be one where they returned not with new laws but with striking some of the old ones from the books.
That's not going to happen. So, you end up with greater and greater restrictions on your rights as time passes. Things build up, pressure builds, there's either a voluntary change of power, a revolution, or a civil war.
The tree of liberty is refreshed by the blood of patriots and the cycle begins anew.
Instead of ensuring that doesn't happen, we've grown fat, lazy, and distracted. It's our fault as much as it is theirs. When was the last time you spent a vacation day observing the courts to see if they were upholding the spirit of the law? When was the last time you petitioned for redress? When was the last time you spent your time and effort communicating with a legislator in person? When was the last time you even attended a public meeting or visited your town hall?
It's not just you... It's most of us.
And so, the cycle continues, the rights get stripped, the people snap, the revolution happens, and we begin all over again - each time thinking we're the pinnacle of civilization and humanity. Each time we think we're correct and that we've finally got the answers. Each time we KNOW we're right and that other guy is wrong.
Oddly enough, the wheels keep spinning. I'm surprised we've not completely eradicated the species.
True and to join in with the AC below...
See, yes, you and I shortened "applications" to "apps" all those years ago. We were "installing apps" and "writing apps." We were "working with apps" and "managing apps."
Alas, today, they've gone and changed the common usage definition and what we call apps are now referred to by their full name - namely applications. Some of us are a bit more specific and we'll call them "phone apps" or "mobile apps." I think we're in the minority.
This appears to happen quite a bit. See the RC enthusiasts who are, through no fault of their own, no longer piloting RC model aircraft but are "drone operators."
Another example is I'm a Libertarian. Except, now that refers to the hard right instead of the loony left. I'm much more in common with a Socialist than I have in common with the caricature that most envision when I say that I'm a Libertarian. They automatically assume that I'm a Randian and it's a whole lot of work to show them the difference - they simply weren't alive, didn't know, or haven't learned that there's much more to it.
So, we're kind of old (some of us) and to us, apps is short for application. We difference them by saying mobile apps or even mobile applications. To others, probably too young or too uneducated, they aren't aware of the history and so they see "apps" and drop the "mobile" (which was, I think, in common usage earlier in time) and think that anything called an "app" is specifically for a mobile platform.
We can go with the flow, argue it, be confused, try to teach them, or just continue talking amongst ourselves. I try to reference them as "mobile apps" if need be. Given my distaste for most mobile platforms, that's seldom a concern. I've tried - I've bought quite a few tablets... I just can't appreciate the platform for anything other than consumption and I'm not even overly fond of that. Oddly, I don't mind my phone for some types of content consumption. I'll use it to read and even comment on a site. I have no use for a tablet. I'm going to try again with a Surface Pro but I am going to make sure that I can install Ubuntu on one before I bother wasting my time.
Then again, it will probably get used if I buy one. I bought one for the missus for the holiday and the kids seemed to both like them. I suspect that they'd abscond with one and make good use of it if I bought it and found that I didn't like it even with Ubuntu loaded. The missus prefers Linux these days but seems genuinely happy with the Surface. I've poked at it and I'm reasonably impressed with the speed, layout, display, and accuracy of the inputs. I'd still rather it have Ubuntu on it.
Interestingly enough, I'm vaguely familiar with the project you mention and the two aren't really dissimilar but they're not exactly the same either. Those were, as far as I know, much closer to the source and were a bit more fine tuned than the seismometers that this is referencing.
That said, an interesting aside - and continuation, the devices that you placed were not always placed by hand. Some were dropped along the sides of the trails by airplane and helicopters. The Viet Minh knew about some of them and found some of them. They'd often then do things like move the sensors or create noise to deliberately mislead those listening to the sensors.
I am not certain but I also recollect reading about them being in use in Laos and Cambodia during that same time period and along the borders where the NVA also would travel but not specifically along the Ho Chi Minh trails. I'd speculate that there is much to this story that I've not heard and that there were probably additional uses then and now. I find it hard to believe that the entirety of the truth has been told.
So, for their effectiveness, I can say that I have read (and seen in at least one documentary) that the Viet Minh/Cong/NVA knew something about them and made use of them to confuse trackers and mask movements. I seem to recall reading about some of them being put in place by some LRP forces but I may be conflating two separate programs at this point and can only guess that the two are somehow related (though they sound similar).
Finally, I'm not entirely certain which one would contain it (there are something like 65 episodes, each about an hour long) but there's a documentary series called "Secrets of War." It's not the greatest of series but it does have some unique and interesting points. I'm not positive but I think that one of their episodes about the Vietnam War contained a few blurbs about this program that the AC is referencing.
I've not heard much about the program, only tidbits here and there, which is one of the reasons that I think that I'm probably not getting all the information. Most of the information that I'm able to recollect is presented and relayed by the NVA. In other words, not many people speak of and seem to know of this program. Thus, for once, I'm inclined to actually believe the AC is telling the truth or as much of the truth as they're allowed to tell.
I'm inclined to agree. This is much more interesting than folks here seem to think. Maybe it's just me but I love tech news and this certainly qualifies. Anyone who claims that they expected or knew this, prior to this article, is full of shit or better have their names on this paper or some other article that predates this. I am, by no means, even remotely an expert but I've watched a shitton of documentaries over the years - many had segments on detecting things with a seismometer, and nothing indicated that they were at the point where they'd be able to detect things like this.
Hell, I remember them being reasonably surprised that they could triangulate to find underground nuke tests.
At any rate, to expand on this - at least in my head, it'd be interesting when we can not use this for forensic discovery but monitor things in real time and make accurate real-time interpretations and/or predictions based on the signals. I imagine that some deep machine learning, neural network, or AI type things might be applicable here. Alas, I am no guru and can only speculate but I'd not be surprised if we had that kind of compute horsepower available for fairly reasonable costs.
That's probably covered in their charter. Without taking the time to research it and going by memory, well... They were communicating overseas. That alone puts this within their realm - unless I'm missing something. Even if the President himself were to make a phone call to a dog living in Zanzibar, the information would be subject to scooping, mining, indexing, listening, archiving, and analytics.
For better or worse, that's kind of what they do. Had these been communications between two parties, both on US soil, then this would be against the rules. This next part is one I'm not sure of but I'm pretty sure I have this correct; Had the communications been between two parties, one on use soil and the other at the US embassy in Israel, then it would have been illegal - probably. As it was probably not a direct line but was routed through various nodes, specifically those not on US soil, then it may have still been subject to monitoring while still remaining within the scope of the NSA's charter.
I am not entirely certain how that last one works but that's probably how they interpret it. As far as I know, that's never had a ruling to establish precedent and I can only speculate. As mentioned before, I spent some time as an embassy guard and we had to learn a little about what was and what was not considered territorial assets. We did have some, limited, training on both US law and international law where sensitive data was concerned but this was not something we covered.
At any rate, no matter who you are - if you're communicating with someone who is not on US soil then you're potentially being monitored (legally) by the NSA. Even if you're speaking to a Head of State, a dog, or a computer with your computer. Note: I am not saying that this is acceptable, I am not condoning this, nor am I judging it. This is just my interpretation of the regulations as I know them.
That said, Obama claimed that the NSA would not be spying on friendly countries. This was a while back and wasn't very specific. Unless he handed down, by executive order, something to limit the NSA's surveillance to a limited group of countries then this probably is not a legally binding statement and was purely political in motivation and effect.
Also, this is (probably) neither treason nor sedition. This is probably not in violation of the Logan Act. They elected officials are free to confer with any group of people. They are not free to create a treaty on their own. They are free to seek council, opinion, and information from any source they wish. I'd like to keep it that way as it means you and I can also be those sources. Reality might be different but the idea of preventing them from seeking council from any source they wish is abhorrent and rather contrary to the idea of freedom of speech and association. Even congresscritters are entitled to those enumerated rights.
Finally, I'd speculate that there's probably an argument to be made that anything said should be property of the government (and by extension, we the people) and open to review and publication (depending on the sensitivity and classification status). Considering that it was likely about the governance then we should be privy to it - depending on its classification status. Or, at least, there's an argument to be made for such. I'm not entirely certain on what laws would be applicable and what falls into the public information category in these regards. It's a bit too complicated and I've not researched that. Given the information that I do have, I'm inclined to believe that such communications should be, in part or in full, available to the public by means of a FOIA request which would necessitate storage and retrieval systems.
Theoretically, the government is what stops me from taking your stuff and doing what I want to you. Reality will probably bear that out. The idea that an anarchy can exist, in a peaceful and free state, is laughably naive. See, for evidence, times and places where the rule of law have broken down.
Yes, I know you're aware of that but I figured I'd make a feeble attempt at flushing it out a little for those who might otherwise be confused.
Heh... I wondered if anyone would comment and try to fix this misconception that seems to permeate this thread.
No, they're well within their bounds, as you said. I'm not sure why so many people here think they're qualified to opine on matters of law or believe they're constitutional scholars. They did not, from reading, attempt to actually create a treaty. They're free to consult with foreign nations - they can consult with pretty much anyone.
Alas, we're full of constitutional scholars and legal professionals on this site. It's akin to me trying to tell people, here, how to properly program in Java. (I know not one damned bit of Java.)
The born again Christians that I'm familiar with make no such claims. In fact, they quote some scripture (which I'm unfamiliar with and too lazy to look up) that states that nobody knows the date or time when such will happen. I suspect you know this (there's no excuse not to). Why would you make such a broad claim?
He is saying it is not for him, it's too complicated for him, and that he thinks nobody should use it. I'm not sure why they feel inclined to opine on something that is neither meant for them nor will be used by them. They've made it quite clear that they're not from the US but they feel compelled to say that NYC shouldn't do this. No, I do not understand the motivation.
Oddly, some of those rules do make sense in the real world. I'd hate to live by them but that's probably because I don't actually have to worry about making a living.
Thanks for the link. 'Twas an interesting read. I'm not much for television but I've seen a few of those shows. I do like certain videos but not television, if that makes sense. I love documentaries - to the point where it's probably an obsession. I just don't like commercials, intros, credits, and the likes. I don't really need a bunch of effects or anything but sometimes those come in handy. Sometimes I watch regular movies but not very often.
Yup. The thumbs NEVER wrap around the steering wheel. Ever. Thumbs out! Mine typically have the four finger wrapped around, to some extent, and the thumb resting or nearly resting on the front of the wheel. If you ever take an advanced driving class, like a racing school, they'll teach you the same thing. It's not unheard of for thumbs to actually get ripped off - or so I'm told.
A Saab, eh? I had (blown engine and just not bothered replacing it) a 900S Turbo set up to rally. It was complete with the roll cage, seats, five point harness, helmets, and the likes. I really need to tear it down, remove the skid plate, and salvage the cage. I could put a new engine in it but I'm actually considering a Quantum or Quatro instead.
Oddly, I was just having a conversation about this with another poster a day or so ago.
At any rate, no power steering is a good thing, in my humble opinion. If you have power steering and it breaks then it is actually more difficult to steer than a vehicle designed without it. It's an unnecessary point of failure. The HMMWV has power steering and it had some issues but they've ironed them out to the best of my knowledge. I'd have preferred that it be designed without it. If I recall correctly, it has backup lines and the steering ratio is not so high that it makes it too difficult should the pump fail. However, it has been a lot of years since then.
The lighting on the HMMWV wasn't the greatest either, now that I think about it. It wasn't terrible and we never brought extra bulbs with us. When they were covered with the blackout slits it was rather tough but other than that it was okay, I guess. It's not like they had high intensity discharge lamps like the BMWs or anything but they weren't too bad. You're also seated pretty high and the lights are fairly high off the ground so I guess I can't really complain.
I very much want to take one of these VLRAs for a spin. They look rugged and very utilitarian. They look like they might even make a fair weapons platform. Perhaps someone can modify one to fire frozen eggs? ;-) (I could so see that being mounted on a bar on the top. Even a swivel connection shouldn't be too hard to engineer.) With pre-filled cartridges, well... I'm pretty sure that, if done safely, there's no way that can not result in a good time.
It was all so very exciting and, really, it has been rather dull for the last few decades. Sure, there were great things - like ISS, Hubble, and the likes. There were tragedies and much was learned. I remember the first time the Shuttle went up and hoping that was going to usher in a new age, it did not.
Yet, seeing that "simple" thing of the first stage not only landing but landing so perfectly and so close to exactly on the X brought back some of the same feelings and levels of excitement (and dreams, and hope) that I had as a child. It was a sight to behold. Unfortunately, I did not witness it live but I was able to catch the video shortly after that. I've since downloaded and archived the video. I've even watched it a few more times.
Maybe, just maybe, we're finally going somewhere. Even if it's a slow start, still - this might be an actual tipping point. (Allow an old man his feeble dreams. Err... Except I'm just 58.) Maybe, when historians look back, they'll see this as a pivotal change that meant great things happened because of it. Maybe, as you say, we're finally going somewhere.
At any rate, the pajamas were awesome. They were a kind of blue with astronauts floating around on them. You could tell that they had been made prior to the finalization of the suits because they ended up with a more accurate depiction on later versions of those pajamas. They had those vinyl covered feet things and I'd run and slide across the floor on 'em. In my kid brain, those were valid exercises to prepare myself for the hardships and to demonstrate that I had the right stuff.
Sure, it is kind of silly in reflection and probably would be embarrassing to admit for some people but I'm not easily embarrassed and I think it may serve some of the younger folks well to know the kind of excitement we had and what led us into fields like science, mathematics, engineering, and even made us interested in computers. So, perhaps it is a little embarrassing but it's worth it to put it out there for posterity. Someone might find it interesting and look into it and take an interest. Someone else may have a similar recollection (like yours) and add that to the pile. Who knows?
I'm inclined to agree. I really don't have a problem with speech until it turns into an action. Oh, in the US, libel and slander are civil offenses. You don't go to jail for civil offenses but you can go to jail for criminal offenses.
Erf... This is tough but I still prefer (I think?) to err on the side of freedom with both threats and harassment with some caveats. If you say that you're going to kill me - I'd absolutely hate for you to be prosecuted for that and would likely argue that on your behalf in a court of law. Why? It's not a realistic threat. You don't really have much of a chance to do that.
On the other hand, if you've said you're going to kill me and have taken the time to locate me and buy a plane ticket to come perform the deed - then you've taken an action. That's where I'd want that line drawn.
Harassment? Well... I just don't mind it, in and of itself. However, if that harassment (intentionally or not) results in others taking some action then I suppose some shared culpability needs to be considered. Again, I prefer to err on the side of freedom until such time as it reaches the point of action that may be harmful.
I'm not sure that I'm articulating that well. There are risks associated with those beliefs. It's quite possible that the threat or harassment turns into an action before there is time for intervention and prevention. Risks are inherent in a free system.
Also, the good thing about a host who will allow a platform such as the American Nazi Party is that they quite likely will allow you the same capacity to speak. As reprehensible as that group might be, I'm glad that they're allowed a platform.
Probably fairly accurate. I guess, what I find odd is that people continue to paint with a broad brush without actually taking the time to notice that there are some finer strokes to be made. To them, all Libertarians are Randian, anarcho-capitalistic, greedy, etc... There are a number of fine resources, for free, that explain that there are a whole host of variations.
By now, you're familiar with my posts and I with yours. I assume you are also aware that I'm willing to take criticism and hold my beliefs up to scrutiny. I say that in order to say this: I've put my beliefs up to scrutiny and have given an adequate defense. I'm comfortable with the logic and reasoning used to form these political beliefs. I've held them up to scrutiny *because* I wanted to ensure that these conclusions are logically sound.
So, yes... I expect people who opine to have taken the time to do a little bit of research. There are, by insinuation or overtly, a number of things applied to the pejorative use of the name and they aren't accurate. I don't see it as being much different than saying something akin to, "Jews are greedy."
Add to that my own biases, my expectations of people, and my frustrations and you get what you see here.
What's more frustrating is that my particular beliefs were actually held by the vast majority of folks in the party. Now? The party has been co-opted, usurped, and bastardized. At one point, we were the "loony left." Now, though I've not made any change, I'm the "greedy right" by association. I'd have much preferred the Randians to elect to use a different title. I'd much rather the ashamed Republicans form their own party instead of assuming this title without actually understanding the concept of liberty.
They are not so keen on liberty unless that liberty is for them and them alone. I am of the mind that the greatest liberty is one that is shared and a protected asset known as the commons. I think the more people have leisure and assets then the more they able to use their freedom to enjoy their liberties. Ah well...
Oh, for some clarification on the verbiage, I like to put it this way: I am free to kill you, I do not have the liberty to do so. I do not have the right to take the life of a fellow human being unless my freedom is in jeopardy. That is the context in which I use the words in this, and other, posts.
(Thank you again for making me think, clarify, and subject my beliefs to critical thinking.)
I'm loathe to do so but it may, finally, be time for me to change my self-identification. But, as someone who has been involved in the party for some 40 years or so, it's not easy to give that up. In our haste, we let anyone participate and speak for us. This was a mistake but it would be rather hypocritical of us to not allow it. We also should have spoken up against those who claimed to represent us. In our defense, we were probably high.
LOL I believe I said that it wasn't irony which is what you said... The second, I did not actually reach any conclusions and state if it was ironic or not. You said I got it wrong and then said what I said.
You're right - that's why I said it wasn't the same but that it amounted to the same thing. (Name the .reg key something you'll understand at a later date.) If you *really* wanted then you could probably just make a .reg and a .txt with the same name and put your comments in there but that seems like a lot of work.
You're most welcome and I got it when I re-read it. I've reasoned that you probably either have an interest or a background in law, based on the quality of your posts, and made a mental note. I also use the friends/foes list for that purpose or similar reasons.
Hmm... I think I might have noticed when you had explained the difference between the burdens of proof with civil and criminal matters. It might have been a "beyond all doubt" type of comment that you were responding to. Not too many people have taken the time to learn that or to learn that it is reasonable doubt and what reasonable doubt actually means.
So, your posts get flagged and I can learn something new - or at least get insight that I might not otherwise have had, by means of your post. So, really, thank you. I am no legal scholar but I did have the chance to get paid to spend time in a mock court and help the lawyers. I've also spent time observing the courts. I also have had to go to court for a variety of reasons. There's a lot to learn which makes it a fine subject.
Thanks to you - and the others, for responding. I was awfully confused.
That might be true but, and this is a question - I don't know, wouldn't you have to retrain it for new information such as new patterns where a human would not need training (necessarily) to be able to do the same when the patterns changed?
Hmm... You're more generous than I. Ah well... No holiday here yet. It's raining. Saturday night there's gonna be party. Everything is set to go. Even a couple of /.ers are to be in attendance.
Wait, no... Sorry for bugging you. ;-)
I was reading your post wrong. My bad. I don't know if it's your choice of verbiage or my failure to comprehend. I'll submit that it is the latter. Reading it again makes it clear. I was wondering why you'd have said such a thing. I was pretty sure that there was something wrong with that picture. I generally rely on you to give good information - and you did. I just misread it.
Thanks (and sorry) again.
Isn't that kind of backwards?
Shouldn't the plaintiff have to prove guilt - as the defendant should be innocent until proven guilty?
Well, not proven guilty as this is likely a civil infraction at this point. So they'd only have to provide the preponderance of evidence in which they show that the defendant is, more likely than not, guilty of the offense charged by the plaintiff?
I'm kind of confused. I trust your judgment and have seen enough of your posts to safely accept them as relatively authoritative. Could you explain what I'm missing in this case? Innocence should the default, you should never have to prove you're innocent.
Heh... I'm (I admit) not that familiar with the series but I've seen a few episodes and parts of many other episodes. I thought that, quite specifically, you could trust them. I was under the impression that you could always count on them to uphold their end of the bargain but that their end of the bargain wasn't always what you thought you were agreeing to.
I thought they never, ever, did anything like go against the contract or agreement. The general idea was that you were to do that whole Caveat Emptor thing, make sure all the Ts were crossed and the Is dotted, make sure you had spelled out, specifically, the expectations and made sure that you also upheld your end of the bargain.
Basically, I was under the impression that you could always trust them to try to screw you over.
Call me skeptical but this sounds more like a lawyer who is going to intentionally cause some disruption, get sued, and then use the donations to pay for legal fees (providing an income) and maybe get them some fame (providing an income) even if they don't actually win their case.
"Oh, hi! I was doing this thing and I knew damned well that doing this was going to get me sued. If each of you help donate then we can fight this miscarriage of justice! We can thwart this hydra known as Paramount and the IP-cartels. All I need now, I just happen to be a lawyer, is some money to help keep this project afloat. You can send money by PayPal, BitCoin, Check, Money Order, or wire it directly to this account! Thank you for helping to keep this project alive and, keep in mind, if you donate this much money - we'll even try to ship a product and you'll get some bonus material if you help by donating even more money to our legal defense team!"
Yeah, I'm cynical, skeptical, jaded, disillusioned, disenfranchised, disgusted, pragmatic, and grouchy. However, it's rather convenient to have a lawyer on-board and one who mentions that they anticipated the lawsuit ahead of time. Perhaps there's some altruism, some shred of dignity, some actual intent to create...