Why not just send some CIA Predator drones and assassinate the guy? We've already done it. Just proclaim the guy a "terrorist", which will make him a valid target in a "war" that has no forseeable end, no defined boundaries, and no defined enemy.
Or does the US only perform extra-judicial executions against its own citizens?
I'm an American, and I love this nation, but i'm not some flag-waving, big-foam-finger-wearing, dumbass who likes the tastes of his own "patriotic" jizz. And because I love this nation, I HATE IT when the government pulls any sort of bullshit that starts to wear away at civil liberties, and due process. And no, I don't give in to fear and tolerate abuses of other people, citizen or not, "enemies" or not, either.
Why? Because I don't want to see any damn ships with US refugees on them. And if you had ANY level of real patriotism and not the phoney-foam-finger kind, you'd be putting up a bitch at every little thing like the ACLU, instead of acting like its all ok. Because by the time you figure out it's not ok, or it becomes not ok, it's too damn late.
And please, can this Right-Wing-Politically-Correct crap about demonizing education, its institutions, and intelligent people just die already? I mean damn, i'd rather "Dumb Polack" jokes not exist to begin with, but I SURE AS HELL don't want it replaced with "Dumb Yank" jokes.
"However, you have blurred the fact that a pregnant women is not a 'single' body. The unborn child is a unique individual and deserves to be protected from its mother, if she feels that murder is a solution to being 'inconvenienced'."
That of course assumes there is in fact a "third party."
Which is actually the whole problem when it comes to choice vs anti-choice. Exactly when does the clump of cells go from mere clump of cells to life-worthy clump of cells is still a question, with everyone holding mere opinions on the matter.
I myself would also like to know what is life-worthy. I mean hell, bacteria is life, but we slaughter it without thought. Chickens and cows are advanced life, but we slaughter them with a knife in one hand, and a fork in the other. If we define life-worthy as sentient life forms, then we must also define sentience and be willing to accept various great apes, cetaceans, who-the-hell-knows-what-else. Of course we limit life-worthiness to humans, then the question becomes 'what is human' or 'which humans'. And how many far right-wingers (or anyone else in the US for that matter) really, deeply give a damn about a poor black fetus?
There is of course the question of 'what makes humans/sentience/whatever so damn special?'. If we can kill and eat chickens, and cows, why can't we kill and eat each other? Really, truly, why not? Probably not worth asking though, as all or most of the answers will be bullshit.
If it's not necessary to break compatibility with an older version...
If it's absolutely necessary, then ok, it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise it's just a money pit that preys on rather loyal customers like myself, and uses the excuse of "new and improved 'features'" to ensure a sell.
And of course they always have trusty zealots to bark down and flame those who find a problem with it. But that's a whole'nother "discussion.";)
Is there really any truly deep and profound reason for the 10.2 to NOT be backwards compatible with 10.1.5!?
I mean, what are the guarantees that Apple isn't pulling a Micr$oft and intentionally breaking stuff to force non-10.2 users to upgrade to 10.2 (dishing out a full $199)?
Huh? Where's that number coming from? Isn't it going to cost $128 for the full OS, and less for OSX.1->OSX.2 Updates? That's how Apple's always done it before...
Strangely enough something accredited to Christianity (is that the real source? or does the phrase or something like it predate the Christian 3 Commandments?) is readily picked up by atheist like me.
Straight forward. Simple. Obvious. Non-religious. I'll take a good philosophy regardless of the source:)
To some (namely the right-wingers) the symbol is more important than the ideal or message.
Take flag burning, as a use of freedom of expression. Yet right-wingers would have freedom of expression banned because it does so by damaging the symbol of that freedom.
Hell...i've got money that says many religious right-wingers would put the symbols of their very faith above the deity. If their god came down and said "burn your crosses, your bibles, your church" they would sooner burn their own god...
I think he was saying the actual amount of money is gluttonus and wrong, not the profession.
And if scarcity is an issue, than shouldn't people like Hawkins and Einstein and others be gettings millions upon millions?
And if it's responsibility, then what type of responsibilty? Is the "responsibility" of being CEO more important than that of pondering the universe and figuring out some of its mysteries?
And you speak of eugenics, not genetics. You are defining "fitness" by class and social status by implying those in the lower are less fit (and inferior) to those in the upper class.
I also see an implication that "criminality" is a "lower" trait, specifically one of those "worst traits of humanity". But that spawns off into what exactly is "criminality". Is that strictly violent crimes, or crimes by the lower people? Does it include of exclude white-collar crime, and crime by the upper people? Would executives at Enron be excluded from criminality because they are a richer, despite stealing billions of dollars?
Nothing personal, but you seem to be under a delusion that the upper (and less procreative) classes are somehow superior and more fit than the lower (and more procreative) classes.
Class is social, not genetic. One can be born poor, but their genetic or overall fitness does not dictate this.
And another discussion would revolve around exactly WHY the lower classes procreate so much. Is it because of some sort of bad genetic condition (and thus making them unfit and inferior) or is it simply a response to an environmental condition (the desperation of poverty, perceived inferiority, etc).
And it's not evil to discuss. What's bad (but not necessarily evil, though will probably lead to evil acts) is declaring class status a matter of genetics, and labelling the lower classes as unfit and inferior.
I guess i'm idealistic. I'd rather help people out of a situation that could breed 'bad' behavior, than blame them, reinforce that situation, or punish them for being in that situation.
>Those least capable of supporting offspring are having them by the dozen, and those >theoretically most capable aren't. I fear for the genetic future of the plane
Least and most capable of supporting offspring? And this is genetically dangerous how? And why? Does wealth determine value as a person? That stinks along the same lines as eugenics and "white man's burden" to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just send some CIA Predator drones and assassinate the guy?
We've already done it. Just proclaim the guy a "terrorist", which will make him a valid target in a "war" that has no forseeable end, no defined boundaries, and no defined enemy.
Or does the US only perform extra-judicial executions against its own citizens?
Quit sucking yourself off.
I'm an American, and I love this nation, but i'm not some flag-waving, big-foam-finger-wearing, dumbass who likes the tastes of his own "patriotic" jizz. And because I love this nation, I HATE IT when the government pulls any sort of bullshit that starts to wear away at civil liberties, and due process. And no, I don't give in to fear and tolerate abuses of other people, citizen or not, "enemies" or not, either.
Why? Because I don't want to see any damn ships with US refugees on them. And if you had ANY level of real patriotism and not the phoney-foam-finger kind, you'd be putting up a bitch at every little thing like the ACLU, instead of acting like its all ok. Because by the time you figure out it's not ok, or it becomes not ok, it's too damn late.
And please, can this Right-Wing-Politically-Correct crap about demonizing education, its institutions, and intelligent people just die already? I mean damn, i'd rather "Dumb Polack" jokes not exist to begin with, but I SURE AS HELL don't want it replaced with "Dumb Yank" jokes.
"However, you have blurred the fact that a pregnant women is not a 'single' body. The unborn child is a unique individual and deserves to be protected from its mother, if she feels that murder is a solution to being 'inconvenienced'."
Except that is not a fact, it is a mere opinion.
That of course assumes there is in fact a "third party."
Which is actually the whole problem when it comes to choice vs anti-choice. Exactly when does the clump of cells go from mere clump of cells to life-worthy clump of cells is still a question, with everyone holding mere opinions on the matter.
I myself would also like to know what is life-worthy. I mean hell, bacteria is life, but we slaughter it without thought. Chickens and cows are advanced life, but we slaughter them with a knife in one hand, and a fork in the other. If we define life-worthy as sentient life forms, then we must also define sentience and be willing to accept various great apes, cetaceans, who-the-hell-knows-what-else. Of course we limit life-worthiness to humans, then the question becomes 'what is human' or 'which humans'.
And how many far right-wingers (or anyone else in the US for that matter) really, deeply give a damn about a poor black fetus?
There is of course the question of 'what makes humans/sentience/whatever so damn special?'. If we can kill and eat chickens, and cows, why can't we kill and eat each other? Really, truly, why not? Probably not worth asking though, as all or most of the answers will be bullshit.
If it's not necessary to break compatibility with an older version...
;)
If it's absolutely necessary, then ok, it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise it's just a money pit that preys on rather loyal customers like myself, and uses the excuse of "new and improved 'features'" to ensure a sell.
And of course they always have trusty zealots to bark down and flame those who find a problem with it. But that's a whole'nother "discussion."
LOL, that's pretty funny. Clueless as hell, but good for a laugh. Thanks :)
Ugh.
Your type of response makes me embarrassed to be long-time mac user.
Is there really any truly deep and profound reason for the 10.2 to NOT be backwards compatible with 10.1.5!?
I mean, what are the guarantees that Apple isn't pulling a Micr$oft and intentionally breaking stuff to force non-10.2 users to upgrade to 10.2 (dishing out a full $199)?
Accelerant glucose is made of people!
IT'S MADE OF POOOOEEEEPLLLLEE!!!
Assuming we're the only sentient creatures on this planet.
Ah..I remember those. I used to just chew them whole instead of bite-sip-discard. Was a good waxy-juicy chew.
Huh? Where's that number coming from? Isn't it going to cost $128 for the full OS, and less for OSX.1->OSX.2 Updates?
That's how Apple's always done it before...
If you're talking about MacOS X.2 (Jaguar), then yeah the dot is important. But if you're talking about MacOS XII (ie: 12) then the dot is incorrect.
by Requirement of Speech?
Won't people have to always be saying something or infringe on Cage's song without properly licensing the song?
Do unto to others as you would them do unto you.
:)
Strangely enough something accredited to Christianity (is that the real source? or does the phrase or something like it predate the Christian 3 Commandments?) is readily picked up by atheist like me.
Straight forward. Simple. Obvious. Non-religious. I'll take a good philosophy regardless of the source
To some (namely the right-wingers) the symbol is more important than the ideal or message.
Take flag burning, as a use of freedom of expression. Yet right-wingers would have freedom of expression banned because it does so by damaging the symbol of that freedom.
Hell...i've got money that says many religious right-wingers would put the symbols of their very faith above the deity. If their god came down and said "burn your crosses, your bibles, your church" they would sooner burn their own god...
SINNAH!
Isn't it the employees who actually do the production? So shouldn't they be getting all the money?
I think he was saying the actual amount of money is gluttonus and wrong, not the profession.
And if scarcity is an issue, than shouldn't people like Hawkins and Einstein and others be gettings millions upon millions?
And if it's responsibility, then what type of responsibilty? Is the "responsibility" of being CEO more important than that of pondering the universe and figuring out some of its mysteries?
The consumer pays for everything, ultimately.
And employees probably pay the price too, why keep people on the job when you can "downsize" them and give the CEO and higher executives a fat bonus.
What traits do the people of Canada have to offer that's worth perpetuating, more than others?
And what the hell defines "pure 100% blood Canadians" to begin with!?
And why the hell do people seem so damn concerned with "purity"? I mean damn, do you really want to take a page from the Nazi's to begin with?
And you speak of eugenics, not genetics. You are defining "fitness" by class and social status by implying those in the lower are less fit (and inferior) to those in the upper class.
I also see an implication that "criminality" is a "lower" trait, specifically one of those "worst traits of humanity". But that spawns off into what exactly is "criminality". Is that strictly violent crimes, or crimes by the lower people? Does it include of exclude white-collar crime, and crime by the upper people? Would executives at Enron be excluded from criminality because they are a richer, despite stealing billions of dollars?
Nothing personal, but you seem to be under a delusion that the upper (and less procreative) classes are somehow superior and more fit than the lower (and more procreative) classes.
Class is social, not genetic. One can be born poor, but their genetic or overall fitness does not dictate this.
And another discussion would revolve around exactly WHY the lower classes procreate so much. Is it because of some sort of bad genetic condition (and thus making them unfit and inferior) or is it simply a response to an environmental condition (the desperation of poverty, perceived inferiority, etc).
And it's not evil to discuss. What's bad (but not necessarily evil, though will probably lead to evil acts) is declaring class status a matter of genetics, and labelling the lower classes as unfit and inferior.
I guess i'm idealistic. I'd rather help people out of a situation that could breed 'bad' behavior, than blame them, reinforce that situation, or punish them for being in that situation.
>Those least capable of supporting offspring are having them by the dozen, and those
>theoretically most capable aren't. I fear for the genetic future of the plane
Least and most capable of supporting offspring? And this is genetically dangerous how? And why? Does wealth determine value as a person? That stinks along the same lines as eugenics and "white man's burden" to me.