You do realize that a woman's right to choose, in most cases of abortion, were when she took off her clothes and had sex. Let's not talk about the exception (rape) yet, because that is a red herring and a dodge of the real issue. YOU say, you want a woman to have the right to control her body, and I am 100% in favor of a woman controlling her body. I only wish she would. Because what we are talking about here, is a woman NOT controlling her body and then expecting to kill another being while calling it "choice".

The next bit, is touchy because it requires logic that most "choice" people don't use, because it is painful to realize you've killed a human. This bit is called "dehumanization", which is what the "choice" advocates call the living being inside. They use terms like "fetus", "fetal tissue", "blob". Once you dehumanize someone, you're no better than those that dehumanize Jews (pigs), Blacks (monkeys) and so on. Then you make them your enemy (loss of freedom) and then you can kill them without conscience.

Lastly, as a Libertarian that has this argument with other (pro abortion) libertarians, my biggest point is, the REAL role of government is to protect the rights of those that cannot protect themselves. The purpose of strength is not to abuse the weak, but to use it for protecting the weak from those that would use their abilities to harm others. IF we, as a people, stop protecting those that have no ability to protect themselves, we have lessened ourselves as humans. I will always side on the defense of the defenseless unborn child, because that is what defines me as a human.

Those that use "choice" to kill the unborn, have defined already that they are willing to kill for convenience (birth control). And that is inhuman.

No, it is a police state, where the police shut down a MAJOR US City to look for one guy. Remember, they were going house to house looking (missing him completely) with full on riot gear, semi-automatic rifles, and tanks with guns mounted on the roof. LOOKING for one guy. If this is not what a police state is, I don't know what is. They don't flaunt this level of force as long as we are good little children and mind what they tell us to do. But they have it, just in case we don't.

That is threat enough for your average girlie-man to stay cowering in compliance.

Obama is wholly incompetent, worse than Bush was. Remember, Bush came across as stupid, but was in fact evil genius. Obama comes off as genius but has proven himself completely incompetent.

The problem is, any significant level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

I don't view Obama as evil like I do Bush, I just find he is completely incapable of paying attention to what really matters. Here is a perfectly good example: He has spend more time dedicated to picking Basketball Brackets than he has spent with Sebelius while she was rolling out ObamaCare (ACA), which is his signature "legacy". He doesn't give a shit about the ACA, and that is borne out in his actions. And his words mean absolutely nothing, because he doesn't know anything, yet talks with authority, which comes across as "lies". There is a reason the right thinks he "lies", because he is incompetent and it is hard to tell the difference.

You mean, all those "I vote present" votes? Those votes alone should have been enough to disqualify him from consideration IMHO. Anyone not willing to take a stand to gain additional power is evil. Period.

Necromonger! Gross!

or

My Mother is dead, you insensitive clod!

Yeah, but this is the same Jesus that made a Scourge (whip with metal bits at the ends) and forcibly evicted money changers in the Temple. He wasn't opposed to violence, he was opposed to revenge violence. Specifically, there is a strong opinion that this has more to do with being a Servant (to G-D) than anything, for a bondservant has no right to revenge, only his master has that right. By giving up that right, you declare yourself the proper bondservant Jesus wanted. This would mean the person "turning the other cheek" was casting a much harsher punishment (hell) on those that perpetrated it, while also allowing for the redemption of the criminal should they repent of their sins.

Lastly, the eye for eye, tooth for tooth, was about equity of outcome (in the Old Testament). A person harmed by a criminal act, had the right to equity of results upon the perpetrator. This means, that the perpetrator would have to live under the same conditions, for the rest of his life, that he cause upon another. This same provisions also require full restitution for the harm caused (money).

In truth, it isn't as barbaric as it seems at first glance. And from their (ancient) perspective, our current judicial system seems completely useless, providing little or no justice to victims.

Caught, yes.

Punished, yes.

Death, if warranted, yes. The problem is that our judicial system is flawed, and thus we are often not 100% sure it is warranted. WHICH is why I support the concept of the Death Penalty, while opposing it 100% in practice. We (mankind) can rationalize doing all sorts of evil, in the name of good.

It isn't hate. There is an equally rational side that suggest that painful death as a consequence/punishment of violent crime DOES have a deterrent effect, even if minor. Anyone that commits violent acts, does not deserve the continuing protection from society. However, we, as society, recognize that our judicial system is flawed even at its best and thus, try every means possible to keep people alive, even when it is clear that they have no benefit to our society. And that is also completely rational.

However, when nature takes over, I have NO sympathies for those about to die a slow painful death. My sympathies are to their families to the extent that they lost a "loved one". Love, is also not rational, which is why people can love and care for people who are so depraved they deserve no such devotion.

Rough men do those things, at the politician's request. The Army just doesn't invade a country, it does so at the request of people YOU help elected (whether you voted for them or not, I'm speaking collectively)(assuming you live in a democratic society of some sort).

In short, YOU (we, us) are the problem, not the soldiers we send on our behalf. Wanna change which wars we fight, change who you vote for, AND Politic for more people like you voting for your kind of liars to represent you better.

Short of changing who you vote for, and getting others to vote similarly, you're representatives are doing what most people "want" (ostensibly). So, yes, they are doing exactly what you're unwilling to do, because you/we/us have told them to do exactly that.

Unfortunately, not enough people support people on the libertarian side of things to really change the outcome. People on the left choose war monger Feinstein and from the right, war monger McCain the same, not because they are war mongers but rather because of other less important issues like "abortion right" or "fiscal conservative". War mongering is just a nasty side effect.

We need to strip government of unneeded power and put ourselves back into proper Constitutional governance. The problem is, progressives need the power of the Police State to enforce their progressive policies. But they are the first ones that complain about the police state.

He has some understanding, someone was stealing power from the school. He doesn't need to know how much.

Imagine if everytime you went to the store, you took a nickel out of the till. Now imagine everyone doing the same thing. No one person is "stealing that much" but in aggregate, they are stealing the store into bankruptcy.

In short, STEALING is a crime, because it wrong, no matter how little you "steal".

So, you're okay with SPAM because the stealing of services is inconsequential?

The problem isn't the one guy, it is the one guy, times a factor of a couple thousand others, each getting their own free $.05 charge. Pretty soon you're talking thousands of dollars. Stealing is wrong, because it takes from others that which is neither earned or deserved. The amount doesn't matter on one case, but when you excuse the one case, and it becomes common, then you have to "pass a law" to stop it further.

It is much easier to stop it now, before it becomes a legal nightmare.

And why are we praising someone who is being a cheap asshat, simply because it is $.05 worth? Next time, they should simply cut his power cord (unplug it first), and tell him to stop stealing.

For long runs, in parallel, which are common in some places, you use Shielded Cat6 (or better) cabling.

You can have the power and data in the same "conduit" if you get twin raceway.

http://store.cableorganizer.com/p-59711-twin-70-power-rated-multi-channel-raceway-base-8ft-qty-24-ft.aspx?gclid=CK-M-bzOlLsCFYqFfgodKWYAlg

Per password. Given a database of thousands of passwords, properly salted and hashed, which do you think he'll attack? And you'll have to assume that attacker doesn't know the value of anything beforehand, but only can make educated guesses. If you're doing brute force, you do the simplest brute force to crack as many passwords as you can. If you're targeting a single individual, there are better easier ways of getting passwords (Spear Phishing) that cannot be hacked quickly via dictionary / easy brute force. The fact that in your example, you already have an offline password file, I'll assume it is a high value web / commercial target that you've already breached. Which in that case, using MY advice (unique password per system), using sufficiently long password (21 Chars min), you're looking at least a week using your example of $1000 equipment or approximately $20 per password crack, minimum investment to crack the password, with no guarantee of return.

Using PURE math to solve real world examples doesn't really fit. If you're concerned about Password security, and safety of your account, you'll change your password periodically so that in case of database of passwords being hacked, you'll have your password changed before they can crack the password in the database using your $1000 rig. In short, a hacker will have to make a significant series of

My rules:

1) Long passwords are better. Three sufficiently long words, or five or more shorter words, to establish a password of 21 or more characters for BASIC web sites is probably sufficient. Making them unique for each site is recommended.

2) Use a product like LastPass or a private key vault to store your passwords you use often.

3) Do not save passwords ANYWHERE but your secure vaults, change your master password regularly using three or four significantly obscure words of seven letters or more.

4) If you are a direct target of hackers(they're after you specifically), hire better security and don't take advice from some dude like me on Slashdot. Otherwise you're probably safe using my suggestions.