> He'd rather let people like Reagan and Michael J Fox die than cede the issue.
Everyone dies. They probably would have died at the same time, in the same way even if Bush had "allowed" the research. And those two have the same importance as about anyone else in the world.
This doesn't mean I agree with his decisions... any of them, but that particular statement falls along the lines of trying to affect someone's decision based solely on emotion and not on any rational thought.
> 1) Send a robot to a handy asteroid between here and mars.
1.5) Hope that asteroid matches the orbits of Earth & Mars well enough to make sure that after 3 years it isn't on the opposite side of the sun as the destination.
I don't know enough about planetary orbits to say if that's a valid concern, but it seems to me that it would be.
If it's immediately after the election, Bush wouldn't have to worry about it. The other Republicans can take the risk, because after 4 years they will have been able to look back and say that they were either tricked, claim it was a great idea -- "sure, we're still at war but think how many more would have died!" -- or hope the public forgets about it (not likely).
All in all, I don't think any politician is willing to take that bet, but you never know: reason hasn't stopped them (all of them, Dems too) before.
> If its your son or daughter in the line of fire, you're a lot less likely to talk trash to the side holding a gun at their head
But it WON'T BE THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS! Rich people can afford lawyers & have connections to make sure their children are never in harm's way. Of course, there will be (and are) some honorable people in government that wouldn't do that, but I believe most would.
> they should be supported and honored for doing something that the majority of people are not willing to do.
The majority of people do not want to work in a sewage treatment plant either, although it's necessary. Should we honor those keeping up our sewage infrastructure as much as those who keep up the political/military one? They are doing a job they offered to do. They are government employees who are treated like slaves. They offered themselves into that slavery (yeah, "slaves" is a bit over-the-top). Where is the honor in that?
> it's your duty to abide by what is in place. If you don't want to do that, leave the country.
Why, because you said so? I can't afford to leave the country, so I'm stuck here. But I'm not going to just bend over & take it when laws are unjust. I act how I act and if someone doesn't liek it, they can deal with it.
> The only people who are talking about the draft are the ones who are using the idea in a deceitful attempt to scare people into voting against the President.
That is simply untrue. The administration (perhaps not Bush himself, but Rumsfeld at the very least) were making inquiries into the feasability & result of reinstating the draft. If they had no intention of using it, why even waste time researching it?
Despite that, I don't seriously think Bush would be stupid enough to actually go through with it after hearing an extremely vocal opposition.
Don't take this the wrong way if I'm incorrect, but it sounds like you are making an excuse for lousy quality. If they don't have the talent to sing well, they don't deserve lots of money. Which is not to say they must not get it, just that it's not an automatic thing.
Some people really can do that. Just like some people really can work knowledgeably with Genetic manipulation. The problem is, it's possible that the majority of GE's do NOT know enough to do it "by hand." Just like there are still a lot of Sendmail open relays out there. It lets bad things spread.
I make no statement either way as to whether Gene manipulation is good or bad, assuming it is either one. I will state that incorrect sendmail configs are bad, though, since it's much easier to read a book and work with that.
> I'm still surprised that he managed to knock down a bird that big.
I have a friend whose cat was huge, we always just thought it was fat, but they took it to a vet & he said it was muscle. The cat ended up in a fight vs. a raccoon (which are really nasty & vicious, if you didn't know, and this is near the woods, it wasn't like the raccoon was lost, weak, & hungry in a city) & killed it. Tripper (the cat, of course) had only one slightly-bloody scratch across its nose. Cats can do some amazing things.
> FACT: The average life span of an outdoor cat is about 3 years of age.
Lie. Stray cats and outdoor cats are NOT the same thing. It is STRAY cats that have the short expectancy. A good reason for that is that they are captured & killed by humans. Gee, no wonder they don't live so long. Without that, it might be 5 years, but still not much (for STRAYS). All of our cats (4 so far) have been outdoor pets. Only one has lived less than 6 years, but that was due to "natural causes." In this case, Feline Leukemia in a cat that was a "runt" of the litter.
> I live trap about 5 cat's a month that piss and crap in my child's sandbox, kill my pond fish and damage my deck posts.
And do you also trap the other animals that destroy your property, or do you just like being a mean person who takes pleasure in trapping poeples' pets?
Sure, everyone wants to have a beautiful deck and a clean yard. So, put up a fence. That's the only way to keep nonburrowing animals out of your yard.
I don't get why people are attacking cats so much and ignore that they are just one of any thousand animals that can do those things. Cats are just easier to blame, since there is a person that usually feeds & houses it.
I seem to remember a cat's feces being more dangerous than other animals' for some reason, but I have no idea why I think that.
> So own up and take some responsibility for what your property does to someone else's backyard... I (or anyone else) shouldn't have to clean up after your (or anyone else's) cat/dog/whatever.
And dammit, I shouldn't have to clean up after all those damn deer and raccoons. It's someone else's problem!
> I just find it ludicrous that you think it's somehow MY responsibility to keep tabs on YOUR cat.
And I find it laughable to suggest that someone else can, or should keep tabs on an animal at all times. Animals shit. They don't take to the toilet well, so it happens outside, usually.
> How would you feel if I came over to your backyard and purposefully killed all the fish in your pond or crapped in your kids' sandbox?
If YOU did it, rightfully mad. If your pet did it, I'd be pissed, but not at you.
This doesn't even touch on the idiocy of claiming that you "own" a pet. The whole notion is an attempt to assert control over things you do not have any right to control. I consider pets to be like family members, but don't expect them to act human-like, lie you seem to.
Putting a leash on a cat is cruelty. And not very effective, either. Unless your cat has been abused into always obeying you.
Ever heard of "herding cats?" It's a joke because it's pretty much impossible. They are too independent to act as a group (be herded) and that includes being on a leash. Most cats, as soon as they realize they are restricted in their movement, will hunker down & resist, short of being choked & dragged.
Most cats can't even stand collars, although it is rather necessary these days. They'll be locked up if they can't show their identification. Kind of like where the U.S. is going.
> > "cat has a far greater power to weight ratio than any other animal" [emph mine] > German shepherds, great danes, rottweilers, etc.
You do realize that those three dogs far outweigh most healthy cats, right?
Find a healthy cat and a healthy dog of the same size/weight, & the cat will rip it to shreds if it wants to.
Also, to think that cats are completely domesticated is total bull. They wouldn't scratch up all the furniture if they were. They wouldn't prowl around even when there's nothing to pounce on.
They can usually live outside just fine. If you live in the city, it is irresponsible to get an "outdoor cat" -- yes, just like dogs, certain breeds prefer indoor or outdoor living. My family has had both kinds, and after a while it becomes obvious where the cat wants to be.
One of the biggest problems with cats is that they can live outdoors & fend for themselves. House cats (ie, not wild cats like panthers, etc) are not native to North America (IIRC) and therefore don't have the same natural predators that they did centuries ago.
The whole thing about not letting them outside because they kill cute little birdies has a basis in reality because of them being imported, but is so overblown. Cats aren't endangering the existence of any species. They are hardly affecting it at all except in localized areas -- like killing flea-carrying rats & mice in barns and houses.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wow, that was so totally a surprise... when I read about it on /. the FIRST time, last year.
> He'd rather let people like Reagan and Michael J Fox die than cede the issue.
Everyone dies. They probably would have died at the same time, in the same way even if Bush had "allowed" the research. And those two have the same importance as about anyone else in the world.
This doesn't mean I agree with his decisions... any of them, but that particular statement falls along the lines of trying to affect someone's decision based solely on emotion and not on any rational thought.
> 1) Send a robot to a handy asteroid between here and mars.
1.5) Hope that asteroid matches the orbits of Earth & Mars well enough to make sure that after 3 years it isn't on the opposite side of the sun as the destination.
I don't know enough about planetary orbits to say if that's a valid concern, but it seems to me that it would be.
> Ever herd the term political suicide?
If it's immediately after the election, Bush wouldn't have to worry about it. The other Republicans can take the risk, because after 4 years they will have been able to look back and say that they were either tricked, claim it was a great idea -- "sure, we're still at war but think how many more would have died!" -- or hope the public forgets about it (not likely).
All in all, I don't think any politician is willing to take that bet, but you never know: reason hasn't stopped them (all of them, Dems too) before.
> If its your son or daughter in the line of fire, you're a lot less likely to talk trash to the side holding a gun at their head
But it WON'T BE THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS! Rich people can afford lawyers & have connections to make sure their children are never in harm's way. Of course, there will be (and are) some honorable people in government that wouldn't do that, but I believe most would.
> I would hope the war would never come to here.
Every person in the world wants that. We just happen to be lucky that it rarely has.
> they should be supported and honored for doing something that the majority of people are not willing to do.
The majority of people do not want to work in a sewage treatment plant either, although it's necessary. Should we honor those keeping up our sewage infrastructure as much as those who keep up the political/military one? They are doing a job they offered to do. They are government employees who are treated like slaves. They offered themselves into that slavery (yeah, "slaves" is a bit over-the-top). Where is the honor in that?
> it's your duty to abide by what is in place. If you don't want to do that, leave the country.
Why, because you said so? I can't afford to leave the country, so I'm stuck here. But I'm not going to just bend over & take it when laws are unjust. I act how I act and if someone doesn't liek it, they can deal with it.
> The only people who are talking about the draft are the ones who are using the idea in a deceitful attempt to scare people into voting against the President.
That is simply untrue. The administration (perhaps not Bush himself, but Rumsfeld at the very least) were making inquiries into the feasability & result of reinstating the draft. If they had no intention of using it, why even waste time researching it?
Despite that, I don't seriously think Bush would be stupid enough to actually go through with it after hearing an extremely vocal opposition.
> Swiping copyrighted music is quite fine if the owner of the copyright gives permission
Swiping is a term that has been used to mean steal, at least in this context. If you have permission, you aren't stealing.
> It states it is only illegal to reproduce a copywrited material if it exceeds 1,000 US dollars in value.
Is that possibly why the RIAA claims $100,000 loss for each infringement?
> Suing poor College punks today, means rich yuppies will not buy music tomorrow.
A very important point, which I had not previously thought of.
Don't take this the wrong way if I'm incorrect, but it sounds like you are making an excuse for lousy quality. If they don't have the talent to sing well, they don't deserve lots of money. Which is not to say they must not get it, just that it's not an automatic thing.
> we need to like, put like, more THC in hemp
Funny that in reality, by selective breeding, that has already happened.
> it's kindof like editing sendmail.cf by hand.
Some people really can do that. Just like some people really can work knowledgeably with Genetic manipulation. The problem is, it's possible that the majority of GE's do NOT know enough to do it "by hand." Just like there are still a lot of Sendmail open relays out there. It lets bad things spread.
I make no statement either way as to whether Gene manipulation is good or bad, assuming it is either one. I will state that incorrect sendmail configs are bad, though, since it's much easier to read a book and work with that.
> I'm still surprised that he managed to knock down a bird that big.
I have a friend whose cat was huge, we always just thought it was fat, but they took it to a vet & he said it was muscle. The cat ended up in a fight vs. a raccoon (which are really nasty & vicious, if you didn't know, and this is near the woods, it wasn't like the raccoon was lost, weak, & hungry in a city) & killed it. Tripper (the cat, of course) had only one slightly-bloody scratch across its nose. Cats can do some amazing things.
> FACT: The average life span of an outdoor cat is about 3 years of age.
Lie. Stray cats and outdoor cats are NOT the same thing. It is STRAY cats that have the short expectancy. A good reason for that is that they are captured & killed by humans. Gee, no wonder they don't live so long. Without that, it might be 5 years, but still not much (for STRAYS). All of our cats (4 so far) have been outdoor pets. Only one has lived less than 6 years, but that was due to "natural causes." In this case, Feline Leukemia in a cat that was a "runt" of the litter.
> I live trap about 5 cat's a month that piss and crap in my child's sandbox, kill my pond fish and damage my deck posts.
And do you also trap the other animals that destroy your property, or do you just like being a mean person who takes pleasure in trapping poeples' pets?
Sure, everyone wants to have a beautiful deck and a clean yard. So, put up a fence. That's the only way to keep nonburrowing animals out of your yard.
I don't get why people are attacking cats so much and ignore that they are just one of any thousand animals that can do those things. Cats are just easier to blame, since there is a person that usually feeds & houses it.
I seem to remember a cat's feces being more dangerous than other animals' for some reason, but I have no idea why I think that.
> you should see him try and retrieve ducks
:)
That could be hilarious & sad at the same time
My cousin's cat even "fetches," although about the only thing it will bring back are small paper balls.
And if a raccoon does those things instead? Why are some animals okay to do what they want, just not cats and dogs?
> So own up and take some responsibility for what your property does to someone else's backyard ... I (or anyone else) shouldn't have to clean up after your (or anyone else's) cat/dog/whatever.
And dammit, I shouldn't have to clean up after all those damn deer and raccoons. It's someone else's problem!
> I just find it ludicrous that you think it's somehow MY responsibility to keep tabs on YOUR cat.
And I find it laughable to suggest that someone else can, or should keep tabs on an animal at all times. Animals shit. They don't take to the toilet well, so it happens outside, usually.
> How would you feel if I came over to your backyard and purposefully killed all the fish in your pond or crapped in your kids' sandbox?
If YOU did it, rightfully mad. If your pet did it, I'd be pissed, but not at you.
This doesn't even touch on the idiocy of claiming that you "own" a pet. The whole notion is an attempt to assert control over things you do not have any right to control. I consider pets to be like family members, but don't expect them to act human-like, lie you seem to.
> TAKE it outside, don't LET it outside.
Putting a leash on a cat is cruelty. And not very effective, either. Unless your cat has been abused into always obeying you.
Ever heard of "herding cats?" It's a joke because it's pretty much impossible. They are too independent to act as a group (be herded) and that includes being on a leash. Most cats, as soon as they realize they are restricted in their movement, will hunker down & resist, short of being choked & dragged.
Most cats can't even stand collars, although it is rather necessary these days. They'll be locked up if they can't show their identification. Kind of like where the U.S. is going.
> > "cat has a far greater power to weight ratio than any other animal" [emph mine]
> German shepherds, great danes, rottweilers, etc.
You do realize that those three dogs far outweigh most healthy cats, right?
Find a healthy cat and a healthy dog of the same size/weight, & the cat will rip it to shreds if it wants to.
Also, to think that cats are completely domesticated is total bull. They wouldn't scratch up all the furniture if they were. They wouldn't prowl around even when there's nothing to pounce on.
They can usually live outside just fine. If you live in the city, it is irresponsible to get an "outdoor cat" -- yes, just like dogs, certain breeds prefer indoor or outdoor living. My family has had both kinds, and after a while it becomes obvious where the cat wants to be.
One of the biggest problems with cats is that they can live outdoors & fend for themselves. House cats (ie, not wild cats like panthers, etc) are not native to North America (IIRC) and therefore don't have the same natural predators that they did centuries ago.
The whole thing about not letting them outside because they kill cute little birdies has a basis in reality because of them being imported, but is so overblown. Cats aren't endangering the existence of any species. They are hardly affecting it at all except in localized areas -- like killing flea-carrying rats & mice in barns and houses.
Like trying to /. the New York Times, we're not that big.
> they are damaged, psychologically unstable.
Which, I should point out, they were not "designed" to be, just like cancerous cells weren't designed to be broken.