FDR sent 100,000 Americans to concentration camps, while allowing their property and belongings to be stolen or destroyed. I think that may outweigh Lincoln.
The great and powerful government of the USA will send its spokesmen to appear on television, bringing this message to the masses: "Who could have predicted this? Nobody!"
Followed by "Well, what difference does it make now?"
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Do you agree that she made a valid point, or do you disagree with everything she states here?
Ayn Rand may have been batshit crazy about some things, but she also was accurate on some of her observations of human nature. In that regard, she was very similar to Karl Marx.
Bombing a bus would kill a greater percentage of people who are near by, but would hardly register on the national consciousness. Even twenty busses would not stop much travel. And it isn't likely that people are going to get twenty bombs onto planes. But setting them off at the security checkpoint would have the same terror effect that the 2001 attacks did, as far as disrupting air travel. All airports would be whirlwinds of hysteria as passengers tried to get out of possible deathtraps.
Or how about a wrinkle. Rather than all bombs going off at the same time, have one at noon, another two minutes later, and each following by two minutes from the previous. How many airports would even have lines of passengers after the first ten bombs? That is what the goal would be, mass hysteria.
But as other have said above, since it hasn't happened, there must not be anyone who wants to do such a thing. Or the terrorist groups just lack vision nowadays.
So, what? You approach well endowed women of the appropriate height, say "Excuse me for a second", and place your phone on their voluminous cleavage, freeing both hands for securely entering your password?
Removing physical windows in favour of "virtual" ones is actually a great idea for all the reasons already stated and if you cannot see this, perhaps you should spend less time on a site for "nerds" and more time on a site for luddites.
Well said.
While I would have reservations about flying on the plane, if they actually get it into production, all the worries stated in posts above have been worked out as well as can be. Planes that do have windows are crashing all the time. Being able to see through holes in the fuselage didn't save them.
I've wondered why they haven't done that before. Forget about taking a plane down, or flying into a building.
Have 20 individuals at 20 airports all approach the processing line, timed to arrive at the metal detector/x-ray chute at noon. Scream the usual "aloha cracker" (or whatever those crazy fucks say), pull out the bomb from their carry on, and detonate it before anyone can stop them.
Instantly, every airport is notified about this threat, and now everyone gets screened before they even get to the airport.
If they want to fuck with the west, that is how they could do it.
I thank you for trying to point out a mistake, but your explanation is not very enlightening. Please allow me to post a more thorough one I found.
"Another logical term widely misused by careless speakers is 'begging the question.' This is often thought to mean raising (or forcing) the question. It doesn't. To beg the question is to presuppose the conclusion in one's argument, thus to reason circularly. . . .
"I imagine that people began using the phrase improperly because 'this begs the question' seems to mean that this begs us--asks us earnestly, entreats us--to raise and consider the question.
"The actual origin of the phrase seems to come from a mistranslation of the Latin phrase the medieval logicians used to refer to an argument that assumes its own conclusion: petitio principii. This is fairly literally translated as 'assuming the starting point.' But 'petitio' also means 'begging' (whence the English word 'petition')." (Robert M. Martin, There Are Two Errors in the the Title of This Book: A Sourcebook of Philosophical Puzzles, Paradoxes and Problems, 2nd ed. Broadview Press, 2002)
Slashdot Mirror
FDR sent 100,000 Americans to concentration camps, while allowing their property and belongings to be stolen or destroyed. I think that may outweigh Lincoln.
The great and powerful government of the USA will send its spokesmen to appear on television, bringing this message to the masses: "Who could have predicted this? Nobody!"
Followed by "Well, what difference does it make now?"
So you don't think the Crusades are relevant to mention?
Nor does it include My Freedom From Your Freedom From Religion.
What did you do to get the negative karma?
Why should they have freedom of religion? Doesn't that violate the separation clause?
Have you tried Daggerfall?
Actually, I think it was 97% of the reports that someone wanted to categorize however they wished to.
N'o. I' do'ubt they' 'do.'
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Do you agree that she made a valid point, or do you disagree with everything she states here?
"a magical pixie horse that pays you money if something bad happens to you."
Surely you meant "a loud annoying duck that pays you money if something bad happens to you, even though everyone ignores him."
I never knew about a 'horned Moses'. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Ayn Rand may have been batshit crazy about some things, but she also was accurate on some of her observations of human nature. In that regard, she was very similar to Karl Marx.
As long as it's at the Winchester.
I want it to be a place I know, that is safe, and where I can smoke.
\/\/
Bombing a bus would kill a greater percentage of people who are near by, but would hardly register on the national consciousness. Even twenty busses would not stop much travel. And it isn't likely that people are going to get twenty bombs onto planes. But setting them off at the security checkpoint would have the same terror effect that the 2001 attacks did, as far as disrupting air travel. All airports would be whirlwinds of hysteria as passengers tried to get out of possible deathtraps.
Or how about a wrinkle. Rather than all bombs going off at the same time, have one at noon, another two minutes later, and each following by two minutes from the previous. How many airports would even have lines of passengers after the first ten bombs? That is what the goal would be, mass hysteria.
But as other have said above, since it hasn't happened, there must not be anyone who wants to do such a thing. Or the terrorist groups just lack vision nowadays.
Based on the buff pattern of his hand, he jerks off lefty.
He needs better lube.
So, what? You approach well endowed women of the appropriate height, say "Excuse me for a second", and place your phone on their voluminous cleavage, freeing both hands for securely entering your password?
That's ingenious!
Stop stealing my name, please. :^P
Moses had fricken laser beams in his head?
By the way, the girls who died during that incident were run over by analog crash response trucks that had large windshields.
I believe flight MH370 actually "watered" instead of "landed".
Removing physical windows in favour of "virtual" ones is actually a great idea for all the reasons already stated and if you cannot see this, perhaps you should spend less time on a site for "nerds" and more time on a site for luddites.
Well said.
While I would have reservations about flying on the plane, if they actually get it into production, all the worries stated in posts above have been worked out as well as can be. Planes that do have windows are crashing all the time. Being able to see through holes in the fuselage didn't save them.
I've wondered why they haven't done that before. Forget about taking a plane down, or flying into a building.
Have 20 individuals at 20 airports all approach the processing line, timed to arrive at the metal detector/x-ray chute at noon. Scream the usual "aloha cracker" (or whatever those crazy fucks say), pull out the bomb from their carry on, and detonate it before anyone can stop them.
Instantly, every airport is notified about this threat, and now everyone gets screened before they even get to the airport.
If they want to fuck with the west, that is how they could do it.
Good correction. I was wondering what the Orange Catholic Bible had to say about this subject.
I thank you for trying to point out a mistake, but your explanation is not very enlightening. Please allow me to post a more thorough one I found.
"Another logical term widely misused by careless speakers is 'begging the question.' This is often thought to mean raising (or forcing) the question. It doesn't. To beg the question is to presuppose the conclusion in one's argument, thus to reason circularly. . . .
"I imagine that people began using the phrase improperly because 'this begs the question' seems to mean that this begs us--asks us earnestly, entreats us--to raise and consider the question.
"The actual origin of the phrase seems to come from a mistranslation of the Latin phrase the medieval logicians used to refer to an argument that assumes its own conclusion: petitio principii. This is fairly literally translated as 'assuming the starting point.' But 'petitio' also means 'begging' (whence the English word 'petition')."
(Robert M. Martin, There Are Two Errors in the the Title of This Book: A Sourcebook of Philosophical Puzzles, Paradoxes and Problems, 2nd ed. Broadview Press, 2002)
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab...