Try creating crude oil from scratch and see how much energy it requires. Hint: renewable does not mean digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. The nice thing about these types of fuels isn't that it's not energy intensive to create, it's portability.
It's hard to accept a proof of quantum mechanics which itself uses the postulates of quantum mechanics to carry out the proof. It would be much more convincing with an experiment which disproves the "hidden variables" theory. Has such an experiment been carried out?
For example, if it is indeed possible to alter the state of photon B by altering the state of photon A, then it should be possible to send messages by altering the states, via Morse code for example. Has anyone been able to do that? If not, why not?
Except the military itself has been forced to acknowledge that some of them had absolutely nothing to do with any war or military or anything. They've basically brought some innocent kids there and tortured them. USA! USA! USA!
In certain parts of the United States it is illegal for a woman to go topless.
That's the thing though, if you say that "America has freedom of speech", then it must apply to all of America and all of its citizens. You can't say that you have freedom of speech if it only applies to 99% of the population. That's like saying South Africa during Apartheid was a democracy. Everyone could vote, except if you were black, then you were out of luck.
Tell me, are there groups in those European countries that ban the Nazi Party advocating to see that ban removed?
I don't think so, not many anyway. In some European countries the law against "incitement to violence" has been extended to also cover ethnic groups. In probably almost every single country in the world, it's illegal to say "let's all go and kill Adam over there". The extension means you can't say "let's all go and kill the Jews in this country". I don't really see a problem with such a law. And one consequence is that Nazi symbols and parties become illegal as well, because a Nazi party usually has as a goal to exterminate all Jews.
I just don't have a big problem with such laws. You can't threaten people and incite to violence, so you never have absolute freedom of speech. And I don't really have a problem with America having laws against public nudity either. What I do have a problem with though, is when Americans come and shout "America = free speech, Europe = unfree speech" in my face. So if you do that, then I will show you (just as I have done) that speech and expression in America is quite restricted, just as it is anywhere in the world.
Especially now when America is torturing people and killing just tens of thousands of people indiscriminately in Iraq, it's such a weird position to claim that America is the best and freest and most democratic country in the whole world. In my view, it's fallen to a level of freeness of China or something like that.
No, Adel is not in Guantanamo for wearing an Osama bin Laden t-shirt. He is there for having done nothing wrong at all. And there are more such people in Guantanamo Bay. So you don't even have to wear an Osama bin Laden t-shirt to be arrested and tortured. Are you dense, or don't you see that's my point? All your talk about free speech is moot, because your government arbitrarily arrests people and tortures them. They don't refer to any laws, because the people they arrest don't even have a trial.
Do you think all the people who were tortured by Saddam Hussein broke laws? Do you think that's the reason people thought Iraq was an evil regime, that it had evil laws? No, the reason was that it arbitrarily arrested people and tortured them, they didn't have to violate any laws for that to happen.
I don't care if you don't like Guantanmo Bay. It's part of America now, and because of its existence (among other things), America can no longer claim to be a free country. America is a shit country now, and it's partly your fault because you didn't stop this torture and bombing which is going on, and as far as I can see, you're doing nothing to stop it now. Instead you spend your time posting on Slashdot.
The reason I'm mentioning the legality of removing your shirt in America is because two women were arrested in California (one of the most socially liberal states) for exposing their breasts. It was an explicitly political expression, since their campaign is called "Breasts not Bombs". So it shows that not even political expression is protected in America.
Europe consists of many countries, each with its own set of laws. In my country (Sweden), public nudity is legal. I'm pretty sure it's legal all across old western Europe (i.e. Germany, France, Spain etc.). England seems to be an exception.
captured on the battlefield engaged in hostile actions against American Armed Forces?
How can you say that? Do you know that all prisoners at Guantanamo have been engaged in hostile actions against American Armed Forces? Even the American military itself says that's not the case. Read this article. Here's an excerpt:
Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.
The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus.
Why are you posting lies?
It doesn't matter if there aren't laws specifically against standing in New York with an "Osama Rules" t-shirt, if the US government can arbitrarily arrest people and put them in prison without trials. You don't need to have violated any laws, you're still in prison.
I don't think you would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a Hitler motive in Germany. But if you are in America and female, you can be arrested for taking off your t-shirt in public. I don't really see why one law means "free speech" and the other doesn't. It's essentially the same thing, it's just that Hitler is taboo in Germany and sex is taboo in America. The difference is that in Germany you would at least have a trial, in America you can be thrown in jail without a trial and tortured (not theoretically, this is happening as we speak).
In the US you can say pretty much anything, the government can't do jack shit.
What I showed was that in reality this means that you can say anything you want, as long as you don't do it on a public resource, and as long as it isn't obscene.
Most arguments about free speech with Americans boil down to that yes, you can say anything in America, but basically only in your own house when nobody is listening. Otherwise speech is quite restricted.
But then America is not a very free country. In many countries in the world you do have this freedom of expression, for example in France and Sweden. Thus, people in those countries are freer than in America. Those countries also don't practice torture, another minor benefit.
It has long been held that obscenity is not protected by the First
Amendment, but what qualifies as "obscenity" has not always been clear.
After Miller v. California, a 1973 Supreme Court case, there has been no
national standard as to what is obscene. In that case, the Court stated
that material is "obscene" (and therefore not protected by the First
Amendment) if 1) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find the materials, taken as a whole, arouse immoral
lustful desire (or, in the Court's language, appeals to the "prurient
interest"), 2) the materials depict or describe, in a patently offensive
way, sexual conduct specifically prohibited by applicable state law, and
3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political
or scientific value.
So obscenity in America isn't protected by the First Amendment at all, this is from a ruling by none less than the Supreme Court. Maybe you should learn the laws of your own country before you start bragging about how good they are?
In the US you can say pretty much anything, the government can't do jack shit.
You can say anything, except you can't swear. And obscenity (defined by the local community standards) is also illegal. And you can't expose your breasts in public. Etc. etc. Freedom of speech/expression in the USA is a myth and you know it. So stop lying about it.
There are many people in Guantanamo Bay who have been a victim of essentially exactly what you are claiming will not happen. They have been held for several years without trial and have been subject to torture. So your talk about free speech is just bullshit.
Remember, it was the UN who carried out the weapons inspections in Iraq, which determined that Iraq did not have any WMD. The USA "knew" the UN was wrong and took action anyway, which has lead to the mess today. America is not a functioning country. Did you know that 20% of the American people believe the Sun orbits the Earth? These people should have control over the DNS system?
Let's be clear about one thing: America is no longer a western democracy. It tortures people, imprisons people without trial and bombs civilians. Why are people on Slashdot happy that this country has power over the currently used DNS system?
We know that AIDS comes after HIV, but the jury is still out on whether HIV has any part in the cause of AIDS. So just keep on having unprotected sex, we just don't know what causes AIDS yet.
Google has entire copies of web pages sitting on their servers as well. If indexing books is illegal, then so is indexing the web. So why aren't all search engines being sued in the same manner?
You make "the religious right" sound like some sort of fringe group. The American people elected George W. Bush, and I bet that something like 90% of Americans are religious. The religious right IS America, stop trying to blame someone else.
You're avoiding the question. Was 9/11 morally justified? With your argument, it was. Whether I want to spend the time to make up good analogies or not is irrelevant. You clearly understood what I meant.
You're defending bombing civilians, which makes you a supporter of terrorism. Basically your viewpoint is this: terrorism is bad when Americans are victims, terrorism is acceptable when Japanese or Muslims are victims.
The alternative was an invasion, had that happened you'd be bitching about how we should have used the bomb to save the millions that died due to the invasion.
What you are saying here justifies the 9/11 attacks. If the alternative was an invasion by Al Qaeda forces, then certainly the 9/11 attacks were preferable, no? An invasion would have been much messier.
Just stop being such idiots. At least try to apply your argument to the opposite situation, i.e. an attack on American civilians by an enemy of the USA, and I'm sure you would not defend it as morally justifiable.
On the other side, let's imagine that Japan would have won the war (impossible but let's try) do you think they would hesitate bombing New York
By this reasoning it would have been acceptable for the USA to have gassed 6 million Jews to death, because the Germans did not hesitate to do it.
Perhaps you should consider the consistency of your moral system before you desperately try to justify the nuclear bombing of civilians.
Your entire post is just grasping at straws. Isn't it easier for everyone involved if you just admit that it was wrong? In the end, both you and I know that no matter what, you're not going to be able to morally justify dropping a nuclear bomb on a city full of civilians.
No.. it does not have 50000 simultaneous players. Have you even played the game? On my server we even had problems getting a 40vs40 battleground game going because of too few players in the queue. I think 5000 is a reasonable estimate during peak hours. There were MUDs with 1000 simultaneous players, so I don't really see what's new with World of Warcraft which makes it massive.
You get kicked off the server if you're AFK for 30 mins or so, so 90% of the population are probably not AFK in inns.
Japan apparently has their own satellite launching infrastructure. Otherwise I think NASA and ESA both help with launching commercial satellites, it doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Try creating crude oil from scratch and see how much energy it requires. Hint: renewable does not mean digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. The nice thing about these types of fuels isn't that it's not energy intensive to create, it's portability.
For example, if it is indeed possible to alter the state of photon B by altering the state of photon A, then it should be possible to send messages by altering the states, via Morse code for example. Has anyone been able to do that? If not, why not?
Except the military itself has been forced to acknowledge that some of them had absolutely nothing to do with any war or military or anything. They've basically brought some innocent kids there and tortured them. USA! USA! USA!
I just don't have a big problem with such laws. You can't threaten people and incite to violence, so you never have absolute freedom of speech. And I don't really have a problem with America having laws against public nudity either. What I do have a problem with though, is when Americans come and shout "America = free speech, Europe = unfree speech" in my face. So if you do that, then I will show you (just as I have done) that speech and expression in America is quite restricted, just as it is anywhere in the world.
Especially now when America is torturing people and killing just tens of thousands of people indiscriminately in Iraq, it's such a weird position to claim that America is the best and freest and most democratic country in the whole world. In my view, it's fallen to a level of freeness of China or something like that.
Do you think all the people who were tortured by Saddam Hussein broke laws? Do you think that's the reason people thought Iraq was an evil regime, that it had evil laws? No, the reason was that it arbitrarily arrested people and tortured them, they didn't have to violate any laws for that to happen.
I don't care if you don't like Guantanmo Bay. It's part of America now, and because of its existence (among other things), America can no longer claim to be a free country. America is a shit country now, and it's partly your fault because you didn't stop this torture and bombing which is going on, and as far as I can see, you're doing nothing to stop it now. Instead you spend your time posting on Slashdot.
Europe consists of many countries, each with its own set of laws. In my country (Sweden), public nudity is legal. I'm pretty sure it's legal all across old western Europe (i.e. Germany, France, Spain etc.). England seems to be an exception.
Before I reply to your post, I just want to make one thing clear. Do you believe that Canada is part of America?
It doesn't matter if there aren't laws specifically against standing in New York with an "Osama Rules" t-shirt, if the US government can arbitrarily arrest people and put them in prison without trials. You don't need to have violated any laws, you're still in prison.
I don't think you would be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a Hitler motive in Germany. But if you are in America and female, you can be arrested for taking off your t-shirt in public. I don't really see why one law means "free speech" and the other doesn't. It's essentially the same thing, it's just that Hitler is taboo in Germany and sex is taboo in America. The difference is that in Germany you would at least have a trial, in America you can be thrown in jail without a trial and tortured (not theoretically, this is happening as we speak).
Most arguments about free speech with Americans boil down to that yes, you can say anything in America, but basically only in your own house when nobody is listening. Otherwise speech is quite restricted.
But then America is not a very free country. In many countries in the world you do have this freedom of expression, for example in France and Sweden. Thus, people in those countries are freer than in America. Those countries also don't practice torture, another minor benefit.
Howard Stern's radio station fined $15000 for swearing.
From the EFF:
So obscenity in America isn't protected by the First Amendment at all, this is from a ruling by none less than the Supreme Court. Maybe you should learn the laws of your own country before you start bragging about how good they are?
There are many people in Guantanamo Bay who have been a victim of essentially exactly what you are claiming will not happen. They have been held for several years without trial and have been subject to torture. So your talk about free speech is just bullshit.
America also beats, and even tortures people who it doesn't like. Why is America better than Tunisia?
Remember, it was the UN who carried out the weapons inspections in Iraq, which determined that Iraq did not have any WMD. The USA "knew" the UN was wrong and took action anyway, which has lead to the mess today. America is not a functioning country. Did you know that 20% of the American people believe the Sun orbits the Earth? These people should have control over the DNS system?
Let's be clear about one thing: America is no longer a western democracy. It tortures people, imprisons people without trial and bombs civilians. Why are people on Slashdot happy that this country has power over the currently used DNS system?
We know that AIDS comes after HIV, but the jury is still out on whether HIV has any part in the cause of AIDS. So just keep on having unprotected sex, we just don't know what causes AIDS yet.
Google has entire copies of web pages sitting on their servers as well. If indexing books is illegal, then so is indexing the web. So why aren't all search engines being sued in the same manner?
You make "the religious right" sound like some sort of fringe group. The American people elected George W. Bush, and I bet that something like 90% of Americans are religious. The religious right IS America, stop trying to blame someone else.
You're defending bombing civilians, which makes you a supporter of terrorism. Basically your viewpoint is this: terrorism is bad when Americans are victims, terrorism is acceptable when Japanese or Muslims are victims.
Just stop being such idiots. At least try to apply your argument to the opposite situation, i.e. an attack on American civilians by an enemy of the USA, and I'm sure you would not defend it as morally justifiable.
By this reasoning it would have been acceptable for the USA to have gassed 6 million Jews to death, because the Germans did not hesitate to do it.
Perhaps you should consider the consistency of your moral system before you desperately try to justify the nuclear bombing of civilians.
Your entire post is just grasping at straws. Isn't it easier for everyone involved if you just admit that it was wrong? In the end, both you and I know that no matter what, you're not going to be able to morally justify dropping a nuclear bomb on a city full of civilians.
You get kicked off the server if you're AFK for 30 mins or so, so 90% of the population are probably not AFK in inns.
World of Warcraft only has about 5000 (probable even less) players online simultaneously on a server. So that should also be an MORPG then.
Japan apparently has their own satellite launching infrastructure. Otherwise I think NASA and ESA both help with launching commercial satellites, it doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore.