I've been told that the TSA are not represented by a union and that they are expressly forbidden from wearing dosimeters. They are exactly what Stanley Milgram predicted.
I think that we will just have to agree to disagree. Your understanding and scholarship of the history of the region is better than mine. I come at it from a student-of-human-behaviour perspective. Unless Israel works out a viable solution that is acceptable to the Palestinians there will be strife perhaps up to and including human rights violations. Israel has shown that it is not beyond that--witness the Boycott Law foisted on her own people. With power comes responsibility; Israel has the power. I hope that she will choose wisely; Evidence says that she will not.
I wish you well and I thank you for what I have learned from this discussion.
I've always felt that losing land by dint of conquest i.e. where a battle was fought, was valid. Not nice but valid. Losing land by stroke of a pen, invasion by civilians (a whole bunch of us are going to set up camp on your property...don't worry, nothing to see) or by sneakiness (here's some shiny beads...), to me is wrong.
The Holy Land has seen a lot of conflict but for the most part, Jews, Muslims and Christians were able to work it out because the area is sacred to them all. In my opinion, the problem stems from equating The Holy Land with Israel. Israel is a modern nation with everything that goes along with it; the Holy Land is something completely different and needs to be treated differently. Israel occupies the Holy Land. They do not equate; by way of example, the Mossad is not a holy institution but it is an organisation operating on behalf of the nation. Human beings seek to gain advantage in their dealings...that's why we have courts of law. Palestinians who sold their land made a deal and must live with it; Palestinians who lost their land because they were intimidated or frightened off need to be compensated and offered a dignified solution. Israel needs to understand that if nothing else, the native-born and descended Palestinians are people of that land and have a greater claim than someone who moved from Europe. I may be wrong but I also believe that they have an issue with Israel but not the Holy Land. The leaders of the different faiths can find concord.
Yeah... Going that far back is probably not wise. We'd have to address things like the Bering land bridge and David's genocidal actions in the Holy Land. As a species, we have lots to leave in the past. My point was made from a more recent position--post WWI.
Wars of conquest are prosecuted by aggressors. Every war Israel has been involved in has either been started by Arabs (War of Independence, Yom Kippur, War of Attrition), in response to being denied access to the Suez Canal, blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and attacks from the Gaza Strip(Sinai War, Six day War) . The only reason Israel exists today is due to these defensive wars. The only land they occupy has been used as bases by aggressors.
The Palestinians started the war after Palestine was partitioned by the UN. They lost the war and are still fighting using terrorist techniques. Hamas does not even recognize Israel's right to exist and one of it's founding tenants is to destroy Israel.
Yes there are major issues that Israel needs to address; Jewish settlements in the West Bank, return of refugees, etc. On the other hand, suicide bombers and rocket attacks do not garner my sympathy for the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for Hamas and are getting what they voted for. Peace will only come when Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist and stops terrorist violence.
Just for your information I am a Gentile from Canada and have no religious reason for supporting Israel. Perhaps you should look at the history of Israel before making baseless assumptions.
I view the Palestinians as equivalent to our First Nations people. Especially the ones in the Canadian west where there were no wars. The same has happened/is happening to the Palestinians as happened to the Natives. And, ultimately, the Palestinians are doing what the Haida, the Squamish, the Nisga'a and all the others didn't--fighting back...largely ineffectively. The Palestinians cannot win by force of arms, just as the Natives could not--even the Haida who were fearsome warriors. But because they try they are condemned as were many of the First Nations people in the United States who resisted being forced off their ancestral land and into reservations.
Yeah...that's a distinction without a difference.
I agree that shooting out of school windows etc. is fundamentally wrong. I also profoundly disagree with the Talibani agenda. This isn't about that.
The issue I have is that so many of the US' moral positions depend on what their wealth can buy. The American military started as insurgents, using native fighting techniques against the British. They didn't wear uniforms and they didn't follow the same rules...I'll grant that there were no rules of engagement back then. What concerns me is that the same mindset as had the British that caused Americans to rise up is present in the modern American. This mindset coupled with an enemy who has access to far more powerful weapons and as strong a will as the first Americans will not lead to peace and it will not lead to an honorable victory. This is a battle that will go on and on...this is a battle that will benefit salesmen.
Hiding among civilians while fighting a war doesn't make you a civilian, it makes you scum.
Well this is a problem... The people piloting the drones are "hiding among civilians". One cannot engage them without engaging civilians. Are they regular or irregular troops?
Yes, the difficulty arises that every person who is arrested is innocent in the eyes of the law...until proven guilty. Every person shot by the police is just as innocent.
And then we have a bunch of salesmen (prosecutors, the state etc.) tasked with selling the concept of their guilt. The defence are no less salesmen and they are tasked with selling the concept of their innocence. It has been like this since the ancient Greeks. Yay rhetoric!
Were the system truly fair, both sides would be engaged in solidifying innocence. That a successful prosecutor can make more money when they head up the food chain or leave for private practice pretty well guarantees an unfair result when there is a lack of funding for a really skilled defence.
Bull was killed by Mossad because he was helping Iraq build a "supergun". You make it sound like he was killed because of Project HARP.
Gerald Bull designed his "super gun" to put payloads into orbit. He approached the US government with the idea and they rejected it as a launch method but wanted a weapon. Disgusted and disillusioned (he was apparently treated very poorly) his response was to create a truly powerful weapon. Iraq hired him to build one for them. The Mossad killed him in Belgium, a country that exports arms all over the world. It's important to remember that the US military has done this with a number of inventions. The guy who invented the x-ray laser had wanted to use it for medical purposes; excising tumours etc. The US military classified it and now it's a weapon. Another Canadian invented polymorphic encryption for secure banking and corporate communications...US military classified his work and as far as I know he can't even talk about it with his peers.
Well...as another Canadian....
The issue that I have with the implementation of these tariffs is that I have known of businesses owned by musicians who have only played their own music and had to pay SOCAN.
Generally I support the tariff on blank media but, again, I have seen street musicians selling their own music having to pay the tariff because they couldn't afford to go to a duplication house and buy the media in bulk. In essence they have been paying the big acts so that they can sell their own music.
Finally the "music exposure" tariff would start to make sense if the trunks were owned by the people i.e. the fibre-optic backbones were owned like the roads are owned by the people. The ISP's would then pay the fee as part of the bandwidth lease and pass that on, subject to scrutiny. Charging for unknown traffic on private property doesn't make sense to me.
If the offer is reasonable and you have no great attachment to it, by all means sell it. There is precedent (with WIPO) for keeping the domain name if you have not attempted to profit from the other company's customers' mistaking you from them. The problem arises if they decide to take you to court--it gets very expensive very quickly. Also, the domain is likely not worth as much as what some people here are recommending and a small company might not be able to afford a lot.
I've gone through the process with WIPO (I won) and the US courts (I couldn't afford to win). It sucks and is soul-sapping. Bottom line...sell it with an agreement (have it draughted by a lawyer and have the agreement state that the court that has jurisdiction is in your locale) that they won't challenge your registration of the.us (or whatever) domain and that even if the negotiations fail that the company will not use that correspondance as evidence of bad faith or cybersquatting. I would also make sure that the lawyer can hold the domain until the cheque clears.
Don't feel badly...Rogers, ATT's bumboy in Canada, has locked in the iPhone for their network, in spite of the fact that most of their customers use Blackberries and Windows Mobile devices and PC's. The bigger issue comes from their owning the other GSM network-- Fido--which has more Mac users and offers per second billing and a more youthful user base.
I need a phone that plays nice with Mac so I'm sticking with my Palm OS Treo and I'm really hoping that Rogers loses their shirt on this one.
The merger in 1939 of Shibaura Seisakusho and Tokyo Denki created a new company called Tokyo Shibaura Denki(). It was soon nicknamed Toshiba, but it wasn't until 1984 that the company was officially renamed Toshiba Corporation.
(from Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba
HD-DVD supports regionalisation. As a tactic, they haven't implemented it yet. This is all Mopar vs Chevy, Mac vs PC, chunky vs smooth rubbish. I bought a PS3 because I have a whack of PS2 games and there were movies I liked on Blu-Ray. I'll likely end up buying an XBox as well...they just better include a reference HD-DVD player. But mark my words, the DRM stuff ain't going away soon, in either format.
>IMHO, the reason why this is so difficult is because of the awe and wonder (and fear!) we feel when we see the magnificent complexity and interconnectedness in the nature around us.
It's also because half of the statement is left out. It's "evolution through natural selection". Most people with whom I have spoken (and who don't believe in evolution) think that it is a steady stream of changes within a family line. They cannot grasp that evolution requires lots of mutations and lots of those dying rather nasty deaths. If the argument were put forth as "Natural Selection" then it would be able to convince those people with greater success.
Oddly I have never had an anti-evolutionist argue against genetic or hereditary diseases whilst claiming that it is god's will to me.
Somebody should keep tabs on this guy...if he has useful or desirable organs (like good eyes) he may be executed...especially if a party official or other higher-up needs them. Organ-harvesting season is well known in China.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been told that the TSA are not represented by a union and that they are expressly forbidden from wearing dosimeters. They are exactly what Stanley Milgram predicted.
I think that we will just have to agree to disagree. Your understanding and scholarship of the history of the region is better than mine. I come at it from a student-of-human-behaviour perspective. Unless Israel works out a viable solution that is acceptable to the Palestinians there will be strife perhaps up to and including human rights violations. Israel has shown that it is not beyond that--witness the Boycott Law foisted on her own people. With power comes responsibility; Israel has the power. I hope that she will choose wisely; Evidence says that she will not. I wish you well and I thank you for what I have learned from this discussion.
I've always felt that losing land by dint of conquest i.e. where a battle was fought, was valid. Not nice but valid. Losing land by stroke of a pen, invasion by civilians (a whole bunch of us are going to set up camp on your property...don't worry, nothing to see) or by sneakiness (here's some shiny beads...), to me is wrong.
The Holy Land has seen a lot of conflict but for the most part, Jews, Muslims and Christians were able to work it out because the area is sacred to them all. In my opinion, the problem stems from equating The Holy Land with Israel. Israel is a modern nation with everything that goes along with it; the Holy Land is something completely different and needs to be treated differently. Israel occupies the Holy Land. They do not equate; by way of example, the Mossad is not a holy institution but it is an organisation operating on behalf of the nation. Human beings seek to gain advantage in their dealings...that's why we have courts of law. Palestinians who sold their land made a deal and must live with it; Palestinians who lost their land because they were intimidated or frightened off need to be compensated and offered a dignified solution. Israel needs to understand that if nothing else, the native-born and descended Palestinians are people of that land and have a greater claim than someone who moved from Europe. I may be wrong but I also believe that they have an issue with Israel but not the Holy Land. The leaders of the different faiths can find concord.
Yeah... Going that far back is probably not wise. We'd have to address things like the Bering land bridge and David's genocidal actions in the Holy Land. As a species, we have lots to leave in the past. My point was made from a more recent position--post WWI.
Wars of conquest are prosecuted by aggressors. Every war Israel has been involved in has either been started by Arabs (War of Independence, Yom Kippur, War of Attrition), in response to being denied access to the Suez Canal, blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and attacks from the Gaza Strip(Sinai War, Six day War) . The only reason Israel exists today is due to these defensive wars. The only land they occupy has been used as bases by aggressors.
The Palestinians started the war after Palestine was partitioned by the UN. They lost the war and are still fighting using terrorist techniques. Hamas does not even recognize Israel's right to exist and one of it's founding tenants is to destroy Israel.
Yes there are major issues that Israel needs to address; Jewish settlements in the West Bank, return of refugees, etc. On the other hand, suicide bombers and rocket attacks do not garner my sympathy for the Palestinians. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip voted for Hamas and are getting what they voted for. Peace will only come when Hamas accepts Israel's right to exist and stops terrorist violence.
Just for your information I am a Gentile from Canada and have no religious reason for supporting Israel. Perhaps you should look at the history of Israel before making baseless assumptions.
I view the Palestinians as equivalent to our First Nations people. Especially the ones in the Canadian west where there were no wars. The same has happened/is happening to the Palestinians as happened to the Natives. And, ultimately, the Palestinians are doing what the Haida, the Squamish, the Nisga'a and all the others didn't--fighting back...largely ineffectively. The Palestinians cannot win by force of arms, just as the Natives could not--even the Haida who were fearsome warriors. But because they try they are condemned as were many of the First Nations people in the United States who resisted being forced off their ancestral land and into reservations.
Or mlap? (from Skylark)
Both Mr and Mrs...
Yeah...that's a distinction without a difference. I agree that shooting out of school windows etc. is fundamentally wrong. I also profoundly disagree with the Talibani agenda. This isn't about that. The issue I have is that so many of the US' moral positions depend on what their wealth can buy. The American military started as insurgents, using native fighting techniques against the British. They didn't wear uniforms and they didn't follow the same rules...I'll grant that there were no rules of engagement back then. What concerns me is that the same mindset as had the British that caused Americans to rise up is present in the modern American. This mindset coupled with an enemy who has access to far more powerful weapons and as strong a will as the first Americans will not lead to peace and it will not lead to an honorable victory. This is a battle that will go on and on...this is a battle that will benefit salesmen.
Hiding among civilians while fighting a war doesn't make you a civilian, it makes you scum.
Well this is a problem... The people piloting the drones are "hiding among civilians". One cannot engage them without engaging civilians. Are they regular or irregular troops?
Yes, the difficulty arises that every person who is arrested is innocent in the eyes of the law...until proven guilty. Every person shot by the police is just as innocent. And then we have a bunch of salesmen (prosecutors, the state etc.) tasked with selling the concept of their guilt. The defence are no less salesmen and they are tasked with selling the concept of their innocence. It has been like this since the ancient Greeks. Yay rhetoric! Were the system truly fair, both sides would be engaged in solidifying innocence. That a successful prosecutor can make more money when they head up the food chain or leave for private practice pretty well guarantees an unfair result when there is a lack of funding for a really skilled defence.
Bull was killed by Mossad because he was helping Iraq build a "supergun". You make it sound like he was killed because of Project HARP.
Gerald Bull designed his "super gun" to put payloads into orbit. He approached the US government with the idea and they rejected it as a launch method but wanted a weapon. Disgusted and disillusioned (he was apparently treated very poorly) his response was to create a truly powerful weapon. Iraq hired him to build one for them. The Mossad killed him in Belgium, a country that exports arms all over the world. It's important to remember that the US military has done this with a number of inventions. The guy who invented the x-ray laser had wanted to use it for medical purposes; excising tumours etc. The US military classified it and now it's a weapon. Another Canadian invented polymorphic encryption for secure banking and corporate communications...US military classified his work and as far as I know he can't even talk about it with his peers.
Well...as another Canadian.... The issue that I have with the implementation of these tariffs is that I have known of businesses owned by musicians who have only played their own music and had to pay SOCAN. Generally I support the tariff on blank media but, again, I have seen street musicians selling their own music having to pay the tariff because they couldn't afford to go to a duplication house and buy the media in bulk. In essence they have been paying the big acts so that they can sell their own music. Finally the "music exposure" tariff would start to make sense if the trunks were owned by the people i.e. the fibre-optic backbones were owned like the roads are owned by the people. The ISP's would then pay the fee as part of the bandwidth lease and pass that on, subject to scrutiny. Charging for unknown traffic on private property doesn't make sense to me.
This isn't about money; it's about control.
Also, because of intellectual property law, she is _required_ to police it or risk losing her legitimate rights.
If the offer is reasonable and you have no great attachment to it, by all means sell it. There is precedent (with WIPO) for keeping the domain name if you have not attempted to profit from the other company's customers' mistaking you from them. The problem arises if they decide to take you to court--it gets very expensive very quickly. Also, the domain is likely not worth as much as what some people here are recommending and a small company might not be able to afford a lot. I've gone through the process with WIPO (I won) and the US courts (I couldn't afford to win). It sucks and is soul-sapping. Bottom line...sell it with an agreement (have it draughted by a lawyer and have the agreement state that the court that has jurisdiction is in your locale) that they won't challenge your registration of the .us (or whatever) domain and that even if the negotiations fail that the company will not use that correspondance as evidence of bad faith or cybersquatting. I would also make sure that the lawyer can hold the domain until the cheque clears.
Don't feel badly...Rogers, ATT's bumboy in Canada, has locked in the iPhone for their network, in spite of the fact that most of their customers use Blackberries and Windows Mobile devices and PC's. The bigger issue comes from their owning the other GSM network-- Fido--which has more Mac users and offers per second billing and a more youthful user base. I need a phone that plays nice with Mac so I'm sticking with my Palm OS Treo and I'm really hoping that Rogers loses their shirt on this one.
The merger in 1939 of Shibaura Seisakusho and Tokyo Denki created a new company called Tokyo Shibaura Denki(). It was soon nicknamed Toshiba, but it wasn't until 1984 that the company was officially renamed Toshiba Corporation. (from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba
HD-DVD supports regionalisation. As a tactic, they haven't implemented it yet. This is all Mopar vs Chevy, Mac vs PC, chunky vs smooth rubbish. I bought a PS3 because I have a whack of PS2 games and there were movies I liked on Blu-Ray. I'll likely end up buying an XBox as well...they just better include a reference HD-DVD player. But mark my words, the DRM stuff ain't going away soon, in either format.
>IMHO, the reason why this is so difficult is because of the awe and wonder (and fear!) we feel when we see the magnificent complexity and interconnectedness in the nature around us. It's also because half of the statement is left out. It's "evolution through natural selection". Most people with whom I have spoken (and who don't believe in evolution) think that it is a steady stream of changes within a family line. They cannot grasp that evolution requires lots of mutations and lots of those dying rather nasty deaths. If the argument were put forth as "Natural Selection" then it would be able to convince those people with greater success. Oddly I have never had an anti-evolutionist argue against genetic or hereditary diseases whilst claiming that it is god's will to me.
Somebody should keep tabs on this guy...if he has useful or desirable organs (like good eyes) he may be executed...especially if a party official or other higher-up needs them. Organ-harvesting season is well known in China.