Sure, we know that now. But then, hindsight is always 20/20.

I'd really kind of hoped that we could talk this out. I'd hoped that we could just agree that rape was criminal, but that our ideas about what constitutes a more severe and effective punishment differed, and leave it at that. But I can see from this that you're really just another enraged militarist who thinks that any problem can be solved with enough bullets. Which means that I can never really reach any kind of understanding with you. Yes, I'm a civilian. And I'm quite proud of that fact. As long as the military continues its pattern of "justice"-at-gunpoint and use of gratuitous force, I want nothing to do with them. And I can and will criticize those attitudes where I encounter them- not to try to convert the people spouting them, but to discredit those ideas in the eyes of others- something that, judging by the actions of jafo and others, has already more or less happened here. Therefore, I have nothing further to say here. Goodbye, and try not to get the thread locked.

Libya's internet and communications are gone. The soldiers are attacking citizens and some pilots have fled the country seeking asylum. EDIT: Looks like maybe not about comm. The news mentioned it but are not repeating it in the updates.

Despite others suggesting earlier that William Hague was off the mark in claiming that Muammar Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela, Libyan state television is now reporting that this is actually the case.

So what was/am I talking about? 150 years from now? Go back and read what I wrote.

Answering in order of bold text (mine):

Strange way to interpret what I wrote. I didn't expect any different from you, though. You have never lived there, never served, and your arguments are based on some thought that you, despite your lack of experience can convince me you are right. You can't, because I know better, and have lived it. I wish you could live in the Middle East before discussing it. I lived there 13 years (almost the time you've been on Earth). Since you're interested in name calling/labeling, we're done.

You're a 16 year old (per your profile) civilian that enjoys that status thanks to people in the military you despise who protect you.

Discredit what? That those swine would never have tried raping that woman if faced with determined defense? If that were your mother, wife, sister or daughter, you're telling me that were you to see them trying to rape her you wouldn't open fire if necessary? What would you do? Try to talk to them? You speak Arabic? Rapists don't need conversation, Scoutdog.

And what military "policy of justice at gunpoint"? I know of no such policy. Care to cite which order that comes under? Your preconception of what the military is or does is way wrong. Nor was I talking about anyone but me and my brothers in arms. No invasion or any other rhetoric so casually attributed and bandied about, here.

I literally care not is you stay or go, and I sinse I'm a moderator here, I doubt my words will get a thread locked.

Back to topic.

The "Kill Bill" (sorry, but I couldn't resist that one ) has been revamped.

A detailed article about that here: http://tinyurl.com/4zao5ta

 

What's with the tinyurl.com stuff? Do the forums have some technical limit that prevents you from giving us a direct link? I'm interested in the general subject, but not interested in being taken to unknown destinations to look at a background reference. When I want to ref what seems like an annoyingly-long URL, I just use some plain text (e.g. "here") for the link text and the long URL has always worked.

Now, if they could just turn off hatred, ignorance, and stupidity we might just get somewhere.

You don't trust me? Don't click the link.

And tiny url is different than "here"?  Oh yes. I forgot: There is something inherently more trustworthy about the word "here".

 

 

I can hover over "here" and see the address. I also don't click hidden URLs.  a good habit of even using google is to look at the sites address.

Okay then....  You can click HERE or http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20033717-281.html

Jeeze, that link is so long it runs across all three monitors onto the floor. I can see why it was made into a tiny url  .

Thanks Stant, going there now.

I love sarcasm. 

Dunno what all the fuss is about.  Seems no-one's got anything better to do.

Stardock's moderators can be trusted to post links which are not 'iffy'/whatever, no matter whether shortened or not....;)

Docs a moderator? Just shows member number to me. I dont care if my mother sent it or if they had a million karma, I will not click on hidden URLs. All the sites I belong to or visited I have never seen a moderator or and admin hide a URL. Post em all you want, its fine by me. I would not have mentioned it as I just generally just ignor them all but it was brought up and with all DOCs security posts and warnings I though he would know better.

Written during a commercial of typically really crappy TV.

EDIT: 

Phishers Using TinyURL to Divert Users to Malicious Sites 

or http://www.spamfighter.com/News-11896-Phishers-Using-TinyURL-to-Divert-Users-to-Malicious-Sites.htm

Oh, yes, Like Doc's going to post a thread about potential security issues and then rush off and endanger you.

What, to prove a point?

I personally cannot stand those ridiculously long links so services such as tinyurl are darn usefull....;)

I wouldn't even know where to begin with crap like that.....

Hell NO I don't favor an internet "off switch". If the government wants to keep it's networks safe from cyber attacks then let the Government Networks have THEIR OWN "off switch" to cut themselves off from the rest of the internet. If you ask me the only reason the government would want to have an internet off switch would be to keep the people of any given country from reporting what's really going on in that country to the rest of the world. If you control the flow of information/news then you control a lot of power, as we all know information is power.

For instance, if the government of Egypt decided it wanted to start murdering it's people en-mass or murder a certain ethnic group without the world finding out, here's what they would do...

1. Close the Borders. No-one in, no-one out. This would especially include people from foreign news agencies.

2. Control the Local Media. The news agencies in their own country will broadcast what-ever the government tells them to. Either they say what they're told or they lose their jobs...and possibly lives.

3. Shut Down All Communications. This includes jamming short-wave radio signals such as CB's and local broadcast towers. Shutting down or cutting off satellite and cell phone communications. This also includes The Internet.

Now they can freely mass murder who-ever they want, get any type of situation under control, and then when the dust settles they turn everything back on and feed the world what-ever bull sh!t story they cook up to explain what happened. Like maybe a new bio-terrorist attack with a new genetically designed plague that only targeted people with certain genes, such as those specific to a certain ethnic group.

I know the part there about the "genetic plague" sounds a little unrealistic and they'd probably think up a more logical excuse, but, from the advances in genetic manipulation we're making which is growing in leaps and bounds, viruses that could target only curtain races aren't necessarily that far off. There are already certain diseases that are race specific in the world. The only one I can really think of off the top of my head would be sickle cell anemia which to my knowledge only affects people with African heritage. Imagine though if something like that was manipulated until it turned into the next bubonic plague.

Analysts have already been talking about and planning for the first major "Bio-Terrorism Attack" for a while now with things like Anthrax and such. Honestly though, if some kind of "genetically advanced diseases" or "super-virus" were to hit us the first people I'd be looking at to blame would be our own government. To my knowledge the only two countries who's scientists are close to actually being able to do something like that are us and Japan and I don't see why the Japanese would want to hit us.

Aside from all that, there's plenty of other ways for the government to protect themselves from a cyber attack than by taking my internet away during an emergency. They can take their own networks and cut them off from the internet, as can important companies with sensitive information in their systems like military contractors. Not to mention that during such an attack, there could be plenty of people in the US who would be fighting back from their own home systems trying to attack the attackers. I know I for one have curtain...software...that if I detect an intrusion into my network I can trace it back and seriously mess up the person who's hacking my system...if I wanted to. Why would the government take people off-line who could be virtual cyber soldiers for them? There are plenty of great American hackers here who would gladly help serve their country in a situation like that, but without the internet they can't be of any help. It would be like taking a soldier's gun during a fight. I'd say that's a bad idea.

I have read many many posts from Doc and I am sure he would not link to anything malicious but old habits die hard or never die at all. My point was people trust Doc and some n00b is going to think any tinyurl is safe which they should be warned again and again how easy it is to click on a malicious site.

Fortunately, my Cyberdyne Systems Positronic Neural Net is unhackable by current human technology.

Skynet has no off switch.

 <---  This is doc. He is not "watching" nor "staring". He is "observing" (as in "diagnosing").

 

 

But when you can't use the internet because it has been attacked successfully, it'll be: "Why didn't the Government protect me like they're supposed to? Fire them all!".

Really?  <--- Starting "Observation" mode.

That is true. When you start attributing a hidden, conspirational motive as your first line of thinking is when doc starts being concerned.

Assuming a conspiracy first is as dangerous as assuming one doesn't exist. Conspirators win on both counts.

*becoming more and more concerned.

 

There's nothing to worry about. *Do you know a lie when you hear it?*  Actually, a more appropriate sentence is "There's nothing to worry about, but there is a lot to be concerned about."  Worrying is not usually productive, but being concerned is not a 24/7 job.  You might consider "being concerned about something" to be "targeted, productive, time-limited worrying".

Best regards,
Steven.

*becoming more and more concerned about Elementals and SoSE Forums.

Hmm? Wait a minute now, Doc. I didn't say the word "conspiracy" in my post once, not once.... *eyes Doc strangely*. Are you feeling a little paranoid, Doc? I think you're seeing conspiracies where you want to see conspiracies.

Also, I for one wouldn't be expecting them to have protected me from a cyber attack. If anything, I'd just be expecting them to attack the attacker and get me back my internet as fast as possible or better yet not to have taken it off to begin with. I can't fight the cyber terrorists and their conspiracies without the internet you know .

See, Doc. AlLanMandragoran here has the right idea.

---

Never trust the Government....NEVER.