Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Coco Pops]

Oh...but it does. Granted, things have been going on for a while. In the 90s we entered the realm of "Political Correctness." We stayed there for a bit, and then Mango Mussolini came along and started "telling it how it is." He showed lack of concern for a person's demographic or physical/mental illness. As the candidate for the highest office in the land, he told people it is ok to be rude, racist, and inconsiderate towards others. As the holder of the highest office in the land, he continues to tell people that it is ok to rude, racist, and inconsiderate towards others. So, yes, it existed before Mango Mussolini, but he sure as heck set the example that it is ok to to be idgit!

Back to Mark Anthony Conditt. I heard on local news that he was a "challenged man." Hell, I have challenges, but I don't go out and blow things up. My son has more challenges than anyone should have at 13, but he's not going round blowing things up. Why not call a terrorist a terrorist? Is it because he's white that we white-wash what he really is?

Because calling them a terrorist would upset all their supporters. We can't have that now can we? How bad if that happens.

When white males blow things up they are troubled people not terrorists. You can't call them that..

[aretood2]

Oh...but it does. Granted, things have been going on for a while. In the 90s we entered the realm of "Political Correctness." We stayed there for a bit, and then Mango Mussolini came along and started "telling it how it is." He showed lack of concern for a person's demographic or physical/mental illness. As the candidate for the highest office in the land, he told people it is ok to be rude, racist, and inconsiderate towards others. As the holder of the highest office in the land, he continues to tell people that it is ok to rude, racist, and inconsiderate towards others. So, yes, it existed before Mango Mussolini, but he sure as heck set the example that it is ok to to be idgit!

Back to Mark Anthony Conditt. I heard on local news that he was a "challenged man." Hell, I have challenges, but I don't go out and blow things up. My son has more challenges than anyone should have at 13, but he's not going round blowing things up. Why not call a terrorist a terrorist? Is it because he's white that we white-wash what he really is?

To be fair, not all violent acts are terrorism.

Well, the original question I was responding to was about domestic bombers/etc. being mostly white males.

Maybe more on the school stuff later.

That still makes it about race.

I only need one fact. The fact that computers will NEVER be perfect because they're built by imperfect human beings. And a hacking isn't the only thing that can happen to a computer either that can render it functionally inoperative.

Perfection is not required. If it is equal to or better than people, it is sufficient.

You know microwaves can be used for things besides TV dinners, right?

Yes, but those other uses do not make one lazy.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, but those other uses do not make one lazy.

Bingo.

[Womble]

The suspect was identified as 23-year-old Mark Anthony Conditt of Pflugerville, TX (close to Austin).

What would this kid be angry over? What was he supposedly taking on the chin? Why did the 19 year old kill 17 people in Florida? What was he supposedly taking on the chin? I'm a white male, and I don't feel this applies to me. Also...why aren't they called "terrorists"? If they were Muslim...they would be.

They don't call Jack the Ripper a terrorist either.

Terrorism is politically-motivate violence, not any violence. Terrorists murder civilians as a form of psychological warfare in a larger war. The Oklahoma City bomber was a terrorist; the school shooters aren't.

[Womble]

I only need one fact. The fact that computers will NEVER be perfect because they're built by imperfect human beings. And a hacking isn't the only thing that can happen to a computer either that can render it functionally inoperative.

Yet you trust the bank to manage your account. Have you any idea about the level of automation they use?

[Annoyed]

Oh...but it does. Granted, things have been going on for a while. In the 90s we entered the realm of "Political Correctness." We stayed there for a bit, and then Mango Mussolini came along and started "telling it how it is." He showed lack of concern for a person's demographic or physical/mental illness. As the candidate for the highest office in the land, he told people it is ok to be rude, racist, and inconsiderate towards others. As the holder of the highest office in the land, he continues to tell people that it is ok to rude, racist, and inconsiderate towards others. So, yes, it existed before Mango Mussolini, but he sure as heck set the example that it is ok to to be idgit!

Back to Mark Anthony Conditt. I heard on local news that he was a "challenged man." Hell, I have challenges, but I don't go out and blow things up. My son has more challenges than anyone should have at 13, but he's not going round blowing things up. Why not call a terrorist a terrorist? Is it because he's white that we white-wash what he really is?

Does this answer your question?

Why police aren't calling Austin bombing suspect Mark Anthony Conditt a terrorist

A crime is classified as terrorism only if it is politically motivated.

A.F.A.I.K., this nut job left nothing to indicate any kind of political motive.

[Falcon Horus]

runs toward FH
no prob I've my own drive (or is that saying too much)

Not how envisioned that reply to go...

Oh...but it does. Granted, things have been going on for a while. In the 90s we entered the realm of "Political Correctness." We stayed there for a bit, and then Mango Mussolini came along and started "telling it how it is." He showed lack of concern for a person's demographic or physical/mental illness. As the candidate for the highest office in the land, he told people it is ok to be rude, racist, and inconsiderate towards others. As the holder of the highest office in the land, he continues to tell people that it is ok to rude, racist, and inconsiderate towards others. So, yes, it existed before Mango Mussolini, but he sure as heck set the example that it is ok to to be idgit!

And that's why Melania's anti-bullying campaign just won't have that big of an impact.

Back to Mark Anthony Conditt. I heard on local news that he was a "challenged man." Hell, I have challenges, but I don't go out and blow things up. My son has more challenges than anyone should have at 13, but he's not going round blowing things up. Why not call a terrorist a terrorist? Is it because he's white that we white-wash what he really is?

From an article (I think the same one Annoyed posted):

"According to the federal government's definition, a crime is classified as terrorism only if it is politically motivated. With the motive for the package bombings still unclear, experts say authorities are being appropriately cautious in not calling the bomber a terrorist."

I'm fairly certain, had he been dark-skinned they wouldn't have had to think twice about it, though. Knowing all the facts are not.

And a hacking isn't the only thing that can happen to a computer either that can render it functionally inoperative.

Smacking it, I have learned, never a good idea.

...I wouldn't trust a supposed artificially intelligent computer to not burn my chicken or to cook my linguine carbonara properly.

I don't even trust myself as a human being to get it right. I'm fairly certain, the AI would do better than I.

You know microwaves can be used for things besides TV dinners, right?

Yes. *grin*

To be fair, not all violent acts are terrorism.

And not all terrorism are violent acts?

If this guy had been anything other than caucasian they would have labelled him with the tag "terrorist" the moment they knew who he was.

They don't call Jack the Ripper a terrorist either.

They did call him a serialkiller.

The Oklahoma City bomber was a terrorist; the school shooters aren't.

Not until the closing of the trial though, when the federal prosecutor called him a domestic terrorist, which was 2 years after the actual bombing.

[Annoyed]

From an article (I think the same one Annoyed posted):

"According to the federal government's definition, a crime is classified as terrorism only if it is politically motivated. With the motive for the package bombings still unclear, experts say authorities are being appropriately cautious in not calling the bomber a terrorist."

I'm fairly certain, had he been dark-skinned they wouldn't have had to think twice about it, though. Knowing all the facts are not.


If this guy had been anything other than caucasian they would have labelled him with the tag "terrorist" the moment they knew who he was.

Why do you continue to insist this is a racist issue? Terrorism being defined as having a political agenda has been the case for decades, no matter what the race or agenda was. Bombing, Airliner hijackings and other such acts are hardly new.

If this or any other particular bomber/shooter/whatever had been pushing a KKK agenda, or something like that, he would have been a terrorist, cut and dried.

And here is a little more food for thought. This is not aimed at you, but people in general who like to cry racism. Maybe the constant cries of racism for matters that are not racist devalues the accusation of racism? People get numb to it.. "More racism accusations" and dismiss them, legitimate or not?

Smacking it, I have learned, never a good idea.

It's not? Hmmm.. Smack Computer. Computer stops screwing up (or even working) Problem solved.

[mad_gater]

Yet you trust the bank to manage your account. Have you any idea about the level of automation they use?

actually I don't use a bank in the traditional sense anymore....I use one of those Bluebird accounts though it is an American Express thing

[mad_gater]

Yet you trust the bank to manage your account. Have you any idea about the level of automation they use?

and yet again....losing money due to a computer error is one thing....losing a human life due to a computer crash is totally another...and so yet again I reiterate....computers should never be used in situations where human lives are at stake if something goes wrong

[mad_gater]

Yet you trust the bank to manage your account. Have you any idea about the level of automation they use?

given all the electronic security breaches we keep hearing about though I'm seriously tempted to go strictly "cash 'n' carry" and just buy a personal safe and keep my money in there

[Annoyed]

The security, bank hacking and crap isn't fault of the computers. It's the fault of the management at the companies that warehouse this data. Banks, Experion and the like.

The bosses like the convenience of having themselves and their employees access sensitive data from off-site; over the Internet.

Customer data at any company should only be accessible from within secure, protected facilities. In plain English, on site access only from a physically secure building. No taking it home on laptops/gadgets, no exceptions.

If that policy was enacted, I doubt we would be seeing so many corporations getting hacked and customer information being leaked via those hacks.

But, since that would inconvenience the suits, I doubt we'll see that.

[jelgate]

I only need one fact. The fact that computers will NEVER be perfect because they're built by imperfect human beings. And a hacking isn't the only thing that can happen to a computer either that can render it functionally inoperative.

If you want a perfect machine, computer or mechanical you better lock yourself in the house because that will never happen. Don't think, I noticed you avoided the argument to go on another rant

[mad_gater]

If you want a perfect machine, computer or mechanical you better lock yourself in the house because that will never happen. Don't think, I noticed you avoided the argument to go on another rant

and yet again....trusting an imperfect machine with money or that homework paper is one thing....either can be replaced due to a computer error.....a human life however cannot be replaced

I'll keep reiterating it until it sinks in

[mad_gater]

The security, bank hacking and crap isn't fault of the computers. It's the fault of the management at the companies that warehouse this data. Banks, Experion and the like.

The bosses like the convenience of having themselves and their employees access sensitive data from off-site; over the Internet.

Customer data at any company should only be accessible from within secure, protected facilities. In plain English, on site access only from a physically secure building. No taking it home on laptops/gadgets, no exceptions.

If that policy was enacted, I doubt we would be seeing so many corporations getting hacked and customer information being leaked via those hacks.

But, since that would inconvenience the suits, I doubt we'll see that.

and yet certain people want to trust computers that can be potentially remotely hacked with human lives on the road....yeah when human lives are at stake I'm gonna go with human intuition over microchips any day