Messages

61

General Discussion / Re: Happy Satan Day!

« on: June 06, 2006, 06:34:45 pm »

It's not 6/6/6; it's 06/06/2006.  It's perhaps as close as we'll get to it, but it's still not 666.  Pseudo-Satan Day.

It is common pratice to 1) use a 2-diget representation of the year. \n and 2) Remove the padding zero's
06/06/2006 = 06/06/06 == 6/6/6 = 1/6th
Why 1/6th has anything to do with satin I will never know!!!!


Anyways, the world hasnt ended, no apocolipse or nuttin.
It sucks :*( I was all ready to confess my self to everyone in the knowledge that I would die soon. But now I can't so haha no intamite know-how of the uber sexy Hdx for j00s!!!
I'm bored, school sucks, its the last day for sr's and well.. I'm bored.
~-~(HDX)~-~

The two-digit represention of the year is an unofficial abbreviation.  The correct format of the year is 2006.  Today is 6/6/2006.  Today has no more religious meaning than yesterday did or tomorrow will.

62

General Discussion / Re: Happy Satan Day!

« on: June 06, 2006, 02:59:13 pm »

It's not 6/6/6; it's 06/06/2006.  It's perhaps as close as we'll get to it, but it's still not 666.  Pseudo-Satan Day.

63

General Discussion / Re: Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

« on: June 06, 2006, 12:54:40 am »

ok, fine, 1993, WTC.

I believe a combination of security plus terroist searching has made the US safer from terrorism, yes.

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem, a former Egyptian army officer. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

This could have been prevented providing that our system took reports of such wrong-doings more seriously, which I believe, since 9/11, they do. 

On a side note: It is ironic that you picked a case where the criminals just happened to be caught due to someone "snitching" on them.

64

General Discussion / Re: Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

« on: June 05, 2006, 10:25:21 pm »

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

200 years ago there weren't air planes & giant buildings that thousands of people work in

Of course not, but there were ten years ago; there were twenty years ago; and there were fifty, sixty and seventy years ago.

Oh yeah!  I forgot.

We had big tall buildings in 2001 where thousands worked.  I bet the surveillance at the same level we have now would've NEVER caught that 

We should always just rely on snitches

2001 was ten years ago?  Snitching?  That was Warrior, not me.  But yes, airport security was rather lax as we did not expect such an attack to ever happen.  Our system quickly adapted, however — airport security was increased exponentially almost immediately following the attack.  The phone records have only recently started being collected (as far as we know), but we have yet to experience another terrorist attack since 2001.  I highly doubt such an attack (commercial airline hijacking) will be occuring again in the near-future and I don't attribute the added security to the collection of phone records.  Do you?

65

General Discussion / Re: Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

« on: June 05, 2006, 09:44:09 pm »

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

200 years ago there weren't air planes & giant buildings that thousands of people work in

Of course not, but there were ten years ago; there were twenty years ago; and there were fifty, sixty and seventy years ago.

66

General Discussion / Re: Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

« on: June 05, 2006, 07:44:27 pm »

What's so hard about finding evidence and presenting it to a judge?

Unless the US gets an overflow of anonymous tips I doubt this will happen.

Well, such a system has worked sufficiently in catching criminals for the past two-hundred years...

67

General Discussion / Re: Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

« on: June 05, 2006, 04:27:26 pm »

I think you did miss the point, warrior.  This is denying one of the basic freedoms that the US Constitution and its amendments have bestowed on the citizens of the USA.

Whether or not removing it serves practical use to the government, there is no denying that it has been ignored.  As metal said, it's much easier to move to an originally more drastic step when progress has already been made on the said subject.

For example, now that they are monitoring logs, who knows that they won't see use in taking it to another step?  What if they start monitoring other things, such as entire arbitrary conversations?

I'm totally against this.

Weren't you for it just several weeks ago?

68

General Discussion / Re: Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

« on: June 04, 2006, 03:57:17 pm »

The purpose of the government is to uphold our freedoms & protect us from enemies...which takes priority?

Those two duties can be combined into one: to protect our freedoms.  This is, or rather was, the essential goal of our government.

69

General Discussion / Re: Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

« on: June 03, 2006, 07:24:57 pm »

I'd take away one freedom to save millions, that's just me though.

You're assuming that, simply because the government has become more invasive in its search for "terrorists," millions of lives will be saved.  That's pure speculation.  You may very well be giving up your freedoms and having no benefit come as a result.

70

General Discussion / Re: Librarians Defy the PATRIOT Act

« on: June 03, 2006, 05:08:03 pm »

When it's an issue with national security, I'd like to think our government would violate a few rights to get what they need. They'll get over it.

I'd like to think that, even in cases involving national security, our government should uphold the original rights and liberties of this country.  Civil liberties are often reduced during times of war in false hopes of a slightly larger degree of protection, but it is during times of war when civil liberties become the most important — it is what we are fighting for after all.  "They hate us for our freedom."

71

Entertainment District / Re: Outsourcing to India

« on: June 01, 2006, 03:20:08 pm »

72

General Discussion / Re: Enron Chiefs found Guilty

« on: May 29, 2006, 04:02:37 pm »

Yes, there are exceptions, but the same exceptions apply to your conclusion: someone who remains motivated throughout his/her entire life is not guaranteed a future specifically because of the fact that they remained motivated.

73

General Discussion / Re: Enron Chiefs found Guilty

« on: May 29, 2006, 03:33:36 pm »

You know this how?  You're still in high school, aren't you?

Their due success is going to come whether their family is rich or not.  True, even if they do apply themselves as much as they are able, they might not be relatively successful.  However, it's much more likely that they do become so if they actually try.

You did not answer my question: You know this how?  The United States has been proven to be one of the most difficult countries to overcome your born-in class designation -- if you grow up poor, you will most likely remain poor for the duration of your life; if you grow up rich, you have a good chance of remaining rich for the rest of your life.

Public schooling is an option while you are young; however college costs money and financial aid can only take you so far.  The college that you go to determines your place and line of work.  Going to a low-rated, cheap, community college will not earn you a job at a fortune 500 company, but it will earn you a job -- a much lower paid one.  This assumption, of course, is assuming that you follow the traditional linear path of life (elementary school -> junior high school -> high school -> college -> work -> family) that many assume everyone follows when most do not.  Those without significant financial support are forced to obtain jobs during their early years of life.  This, in turn, reduces the amount of time they can spend going to school and generally results in lower grades due to stress and lack of sufficient study time.  The need for food, clothes and a home outweighs one's schooling goals, whether they're truly motivated or not.  Those who live in low-income neighborhoods are also more exposed to bad influences such as drugs, alcohol, unprotected sex, and school's filled with teachers who truly do not care if someone falls behind (I've seen this occur first- and second-hand at one of the most reputable high schools in my middle-class district).  These factors can further hinder their chances of following the traditional path.  Work ethic is not necessarily a determinant factor of success.  Your environment plays a significant role in your future.

74

General Discussion / Re: Enron Chiefs found Guilty

« on: May 29, 2006, 02:44:45 pm »

If they're motivated enough to apply their best efforts, their success will come regardless of their family's past financial situation.

You know this how?  You're still in high school, aren't you?

75

Unix / Linux Discussion / Re: Adding Linux [and Windows] to the network

« on: May 28, 2006, 03:04:01 pm »

Samba.