So what if its an observation? They attacked became terrorists before we attacked them and they preemptively attacked us first. We were justified in going into Afghanistan and we were right in doing so. Call me a tribalist or whatever you want but one aspect of egalitarianism is the right to live in peace. If they're going to go off attacking us and taking away or peace, then we have the right to defend our basic American ideals. The fact that you would rather watch your countrymen die at the hands of a terrorist than to watch the terrorist die is extremely bothersome. I seriously question your sense of patriotism and whether you even belong in this country.
I'll give you that Iraq did stir the hornet's nest. That war was unnecessary. But the Taliban attacked us first on 9/11. In fact, we only responded after 9/11. They've been attacking us for many years before that. They made themselves direct enemies of the west.
bees kill us just as dead as terrorists do and there is nothing we can do about it
EXACTLY. There is nothing we can do about bee's killing us but there is something we can do about terrorists killing us and that's kill them first.
How about starting at more innocent people than the war will kill?
Right, so if we end the war and the total number of innocent people being killed decreased but that caused an increase in innocents killed at home, you'd be ok with it?
because the extremists in Afghanistan are too busy fighting NATO forces instead of figuring out ways they can blow up people in the countries that NATO represents. Do you believe that if Bin Laden was never ousted out of Afghanistan, that we would have had the same number or less attacks on NATO countries?
You might as well be arguing for trillion dollar war on bees because they kill more people than terrorists do.
That's exactly the kind of piss-poor sophistry that I would expect out of someone trolling. Bee's aren't trying to kill people. Extremists are. And they continue to launch attacks against us. So how many more attacks do you need to see before the risk is worth the effort for a war?
I believe that the politicians would be proud, although fearful, of their children for going to war. Many of them are veterans. However, if its the contrary, we both know full well that those politicians can and will find ways around a draft if they wanted to.
A level-headed evaluation of the risk they pose would have been a good start. As it is now we have way too much incentive to over-react. Well, as it was a decade ago. Nowadays being war-weary and nearly broke in part because of that over-reaction seems to be partially filling for equanimity.
It stopped being a risk and became reality as soon as peoples lives were taken. Now that we're leaving Afghanistan, how long do you think it will take until another attack on Western soil happens again? Then what do you propose we do? Talk it out with them after they've taken hundreds or even thousands of lives?
I see what you're saying, but two points.. 1) Realistically, the leader would just find a better bomb shelter rather than find a solution that doesn't involve violence 2)What non-violent solution could you possibly propose to an extremist organization that wants to wipe you off the face of the Earth?
Tired of people saying its not irresponsible and they should post the rest of the documents. You don't know what the rest of the documents are. Maybe the documents are an assessment on whats the best way is to acquire and sneak a nuclear device into your country. Do us a favor and stop speaking out of ignorance.
Just for clarification, anything I'm referring to below is strictly regarding Afghanistan
I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afghanistan irresponsible
Its irresponsible if they're being careless about where they're dropping bombs. It is not the agenda of the state to intentionally target innocents. Innocents are a casualty of war, most of the time.
to 'spread peace and democracy'
I'd say its more to maintain peace and democracy in the State. An extremist Muslim nation will never allow for peace and democracy in any of the nations that fall under "the State"
so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths
How do you know what the documents are? For all you know, these are documents that contain the names, locations, and methods of access of the most important world leaders. I don't see how releasing a document that potentially puts more peoples lives in jeopardy would help save lives.
More than just that, the story lines SUCK. I just finished playing Deadspace 2 and I finished it more so because I forced myself to rather than I was enthralled by the story line. At first, it was cool. But then each level just became very thoughtless complications on a plan. There wasn't much creativity to large portions of the story line. If they're going to make it 10 hours long, make a story line that fits the game better.
You think we are gonna pay $50+ for less game in smaller boring bites? Screw you, quit making suckfests and give us something worth playing through!
If they do do this, screw them. There are plenty of indie developers out there on steam that are putting on decent games for a quarter the cost of today's AAA games.
the point i was making is that the jurors they found for the casey anthony case weren't exposed otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed to be jurors. they found some, but they had one hell of a hard time finding someone that wasn't already exposed to the case
they were able to find jurors for the casey anthony case even though the case was so widely publicized. i'm sure they can find one for this case too, if need be.
1. although there are some systems that are too complex for a soldier to work on, there are numerous systems that aren't
2. you don't know what it is that i work on. i'm very well aware of what my fixes may do to the overall picture of the systems. it gets the mission back up and running
3. as you said, there may be some systems that require contractors, then why do we need contractors like blackwater security? whats wrong with sending in some 11B's or even some 18X if its that high a profile?
i can't think of a better example than the last one to show that there are military contractors unnecessarily doing a soldiers job
AFAIK, you can't monitor this with any consumer or commercial grade system. The beauty of WiFi is that every packet transmitted is broadcasted. So you just find the network you want to crack and then capture packets to crack. What you're actually brute forcing are the packets you captured, not the access point itself so once you've successfully cracked the authentication, the crackers login to the access point will appear to be a normal login.
thats not what i'm referring to. sure, we need defense contractors to build stuff for us. but there is a HEAVY reliance on defense contractors to maintain stuff too. i currently work in some field in the military where i have to maintain and implement things developed by these defense contractors. however, i am not authorized to do a lot of the work necessary even though i've been fully trained on it. the defense contractors have support contracts that allow only them to do technical work. i'm only allowed to watch and do very basic maintenance work. and a lot of people in my mos get out after their initial contract because the defense contractors pay at least double what the military pays (including benefits). anyways, i'm going on a rant. there are defense contractors working in the army getting paid loads of money to do the same job that soldiers are trained to do and i believe they exist only because the defense contractors are lobbying congress to make they keep getting that extra money
i've never seen a company valued based on its revenue in my years of trading. however, i am still somewhat a novice at looking analyzing fundamentals so that might be the reason why. nevertheless, the more compelling number will be the ratio of earnings per share. that's a number that will really mean something. and based on linkedin's P/E, its currently at about 2,600. That is an astronomically asinine number as the S&P 500's average is ~25. Lets see what kind of numbers they post for earnings then we'll be able to see how overvalued this company might be. As a side note, I believe Linkedin's P/E is the highest in the history of the NYSE.
why the hell does it even matter if someone in the military is on a porn site? its not like they can look at porn on military computers. they're doing it in their off time. and being that he's in the military, he certainly ain't seeing much of the opposite sex.
Sure, the US might have the majority of the spots. But look at the difference between spots 1 and 2. Just rationalizing it as we have the most spots is insignificant when you realize that the #1 system has a max theoretical of more than double the #2 system
Slashdot Mirror
My mistake, you are right. I meant to say Al Qaida attacked us first on 9/11. Nevertheless, my point is still the same. They provoked us to go there.
So what if its an observation? They attacked became terrorists before we attacked them and they preemptively attacked us first. We were justified in going into Afghanistan and we were right in doing so. Call me a tribalist or whatever you want but one aspect of egalitarianism is the right to live in peace. If they're going to go off attacking us and taking away or peace, then we have the right to defend our basic American ideals. The fact that you would rather watch your countrymen die at the hands of a terrorist than to watch the terrorist die is extremely bothersome. I seriously question your sense of patriotism and whether you even belong in this country.
I'll give you that Iraq did stir the hornet's nest. That war was unnecessary. But the Taliban attacked us first on 9/11. In fact, we only responded after 9/11. They've been attacking us for many years before that. They made themselves direct enemies of the west.
That would be all fine and dandy if killing innocents in the process didn't influence more people to become terrorists.
If that's your mentality, then we're completely justified in terrorizing Afghanistan because they attacked our innocents on 9/11 first.
Yep.
Lets see how you feel about that after your friends and family end up being the ones killed. No thanks. I'd rather their innocents die than mine.
bees kill us just as dead as terrorists do and there is nothing we can do about it
EXACTLY. There is nothing we can do about bee's killing us but there is something we can do about terrorists killing us and that's kill them first.
How about starting at more innocent people than the war will kill?
Right, so if we end the war and the total number of innocent people being killed decreased but that caused an increase in innocents killed at home, you'd be ok with it?
because the extremists in Afghanistan are too busy fighting NATO forces instead of figuring out ways they can blow up people in the countries that NATO represents. Do you believe that if Bin Laden was never ousted out of Afghanistan, that we would have had the same number or less attacks on NATO countries?
You might as well be arguing for trillion dollar war on bees because they kill more people than terrorists do.
That's exactly the kind of piss-poor sophistry that I would expect out of someone trolling. Bee's aren't trying to kill people. Extremists are. And they continue to launch attacks against us. So how many more attacks do you need to see before the risk is worth the effort for a war?
Not when their kids are drafted.
I believe that the politicians would be proud, although fearful, of their children for going to war. Many of them are veterans. However, if its the contrary, we both know full well that those politicians can and will find ways around a draft if they wanted to.
A level-headed evaluation of the risk they pose would have been a good start. As it is now we have way too much incentive to over-react. Well, as it was a decade ago. Nowadays being war-weary and nearly broke in part because of that over-reaction seems to be partially filling for equanimity.
It stopped being a risk and became reality as soon as peoples lives were taken. Now that we're leaving Afghanistan, how long do you think it will take until another attack on Western soil happens again? Then what do you propose we do? Talk it out with them after they've taken hundreds or even thousands of lives?
I see what you're saying, but two points..
1) Realistically, the leader would just find a better bomb shelter rather than find a solution that doesn't involve violence
2)What non-violent solution could you possibly propose to an extremist organization that wants to wipe you off the face of the Earth?
GREAT IDEA! It will be so much easier to get on welfare breeding man-dogs than making actual humans. I'm going to become a welfare millionaire.
Tired of people saying its not irresponsible and they should post the rest of the documents. You don't know what the rest of the documents are. Maybe the documents are an assessment on whats the best way is to acquire and sneak a nuclear device into your country. Do us a favor and stop speaking out of ignorance.
I call dropping bombs on innocent people in Afghanistan irresponsible
Its irresponsible if they're being careless about where they're dropping bombs. It is not the agenda of the state to intentionally target innocents. Innocents are a casualty of war, most of the time.
to 'spread peace and democracy'
I'd say its more to maintain peace and democracy in the State. An extremist Muslim nation will never allow for peace and democracy in any of the nations that fall under "the State"
so releasing these documents for the greater good of preventing millions of deaths
How do you know what the documents are? For all you know, these are documents that contain the names, locations, and methods of access of the most important world leaders. I don't see how releasing a document that potentially puts more peoples lives in jeopardy would help save lives.
You think we are gonna pay $50+ for less game in smaller boring bites? Screw you, quit making suckfests and give us something worth playing through!
If they do do this, screw them. There are plenty of indie developers out there on steam that are putting on decent games for a quarter the cost of today's AAA games.
the point i was making is that the jurors they found for the casey anthony case weren't exposed otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed to be jurors. they found some, but they had one hell of a hard time finding someone that wasn't already exposed to the case
they were able to find jurors for the casey anthony case even though the case was so widely publicized. i'm sure they can find one for this case too, if need be.
Under what law/rule would the defense be able to get them suppressed and made unusable in court?
i can't think of a better example than the last one to show that there are military contractors unnecessarily doing a soldiers job
AFAIK, you can't monitor this with any consumer or commercial grade system. The beauty of WiFi is that every packet transmitted is broadcasted. So you just find the network you want to crack and then capture packets to crack. What you're actually brute forcing are the packets you captured, not the access point itself so once you've successfully cracked the authentication, the crackers login to the access point will appear to be a normal login.
thats not what i'm referring to. sure, we need defense contractors to build stuff for us. but there is a HEAVY reliance on defense contractors to maintain stuff too. i currently work in some field in the military where i have to maintain and implement things developed by these defense contractors. however, i am not authorized to do a lot of the work necessary even though i've been fully trained on it. the defense contractors have support contracts that allow only them to do technical work. i'm only allowed to watch and do very basic maintenance work. and a lot of people in my mos get out after their initial contract because the defense contractors pay at least double what the military pays (including benefits). anyways, i'm going on a rant. there are defense contractors working in the army getting paid loads of money to do the same job that soldiers are trained to do and i believe they exist only because the defense contractors are lobbying congress to make they keep getting that extra money
Until that happens, the military will rely on other assets within the federal services, or contractors.
The military will always rely on contractors as long as defense contractors have lobbyists in Washington.
i've never seen a company valued based on its revenue in my years of trading. however, i am still somewhat a novice at looking analyzing fundamentals so that might be the reason why. nevertheless, the more compelling number will be the ratio of earnings per share. that's a number that will really mean something. and based on linkedin's P/E, its currently at about 2,600. That is an astronomically asinine number as the S&P 500's average is ~25. Lets see what kind of numbers they post for earnings then we'll be able to see how overvalued this company might be. As a side note, I believe Linkedin's P/E is the highest in the history of the NYSE.
best fucking comment on slashdot, ever. this should go into an archive of slashdot's best or something
why the hell do you even care? he's served his country for a hell of a long time to make first sergeant. get over it
why the hell does it even matter if someone in the military is on a porn site? its not like they can look at porn on military computers. they're doing it in their off time. and being that he's in the military, he certainly ain't seeing much of the opposite sex.
Sure, the US might have the majority of the spots. But look at the difference between spots 1 and 2. Just rationalizing it as we have the most spots is insignificant when you realize that the #1 system has a max theoretical of more than double the #2 system