"Your honor! Sure my client raped the defendant, but she has been hooking up with guys at bars all summer! Posting pictures of herself online! Wearing revealing dresses! So you see, my client's rape of her is just a drop in the bucket compared to what she has been choosing to do herself. That makes it alright!"
Aren't you furloughed? Guess your kind is considered "essential", then. Why am I not surprised...
Anyway, bringing up the drug cartels is a bit rich, considering they exist mostly because of stupid government policies, even being supported directly by government stooges. Fast and Furious, anyone?
And to answer your question. No, I would not want "the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones" if that means that they have undermined the very fundamentals of democracy to do so.
You should take your own advice, to think for yourself and learn about the world. I have done just that, and I concider myself most reasonable. If I may suggest, start with watching one talk from this video, the one that starts on 2:08:17. It is not long, very coherent and well worth watching if one claims to be open to evidence. When you have done that, get back to me, and we can talk.
Calling others "tinfoil hatters" is not likely to win any discussions. Presenting well reasoned evidence and alternative explanations is.
Same answer applies as to the posters above. No plane ever hit WTC 7 and no-one has ever claimed so. For some curious reason, the collapse of WTC 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 commissions report at all. Wonder why that might be?
You might have a point if a plane actually hit WTC 7. None ever did. The claim is that falling debris from the twin towers (WTC 1 and 2) damaged building seven, started a fire and caused it to collapse into its own footprint. Yeah, right...
Truther is a term used for some idiot who believes 9/11 was the result of aliens, bad diarrhea or a massive government conspiracy by a government so stupid it sent machine huns to mexican drug lords just to see what would happen.
And what do you call one stupid enough to believe an ordinary office fire could cause a building to collapse in a way that only a handful of highly specialized demolition companies in the whole world could accomplish? "Naïve" is the kindest word that comes to mind. WTC 7 collapse
And the Swedish authorities have repeatedly declined invitations to come over to London and perform the interview at the Ecuadorian embassy. Therefore, it's Swedish law enforcement preventing the situation from resolving.
Source
I watched the video yesterday and continued today. (It's quite long, over 5 hours.) I was impressed. I would recommend that anyone that proclaims to be open to debate to watch at least the segments that discuss the glaring faults in the official report as well as those that compare the building collapses to other similar events. Quite an eye opener.
True to some extent, but the Finnish copyright law as it is written today goes above and beyond what is demanded in the treaties. This is one of the things this initiative is trying to correct. Lowering penalties for infringement, allowing more "fair use" scenarios and promoting legal distribution options is what this is about. Not about rolling back any treaties.
No, you aren't going to make it back. One way. The End. Full Stop.
You don't know that. If you stay, say, 30 years on Mars, they land more people and more equipment as the years go by, more and more frequently as the tech develops and matures. One day a return trip would certainly be available. It might not be cheap (in the beginning), but hey, if you have been working on Mars for 30 years, you might be able to afford it. If nothing else, your fame from being among the first martian explorers might land you a nice advertisement gig to pay for the trip home.
I suggest just going to elementary schools and watching the kids play wistfully. That provides children without the pain of actually, you know, having them.
Did you even read the article? One of the examples is young people taking pictures of themselves, which makes them child pornographers in the eyes of the law. Is that reasonable? How is that in any way exploitation?
Slashdot Mirror
coca cola you add to the scotch it still tastes like ass.
That's your problem right there. You destroy good scotch by adding cola.
Because having your money in the bank makes them so much more secure so much more secure.
Nor are these guys.
"Your honor! Sure my client raped the defendant, but she has been hooking up with guys at bars all summer! Posting pictures of herself online! Wearing revealing dresses! So you see, my client's rape of her is just a drop in the bucket compared to what she has been choosing to do herself. That makes it alright!"
Aren't you furloughed? Guess your kind is considered "essential", then. Why am I not surprised...
Anyway, bringing up the drug cartels is a bit rich, considering they exist mostly because of stupid government policies, even being supported directly by government stooges. Fast and Furious, anyone?
And to answer your question. No, I would not want "the police or security services to be able to listen in on the phone calls, or read the emails, of a gang that had kidnapped one of your loved ones" if that means that they have undermined the very fundamentals of democracy to do so.
And what did his son do to make him earn an execution without a court sentence?
Weight Gain 4000
You should take your own advice, to think for yourself and learn about the world. I have done just that, and I concider myself most reasonable. If I may suggest, start with watching one talk from this video, the one that starts on 2:08:17. It is not long, very coherent and well worth watching if one claims to be open to evidence. When you have done that, get back to me, and we can talk. Calling others "tinfoil hatters" is not likely to win any discussions. Presenting well reasoned evidence and alternative explanations is.
Nice ad hominem you've got there. I guess you ran out of talking points.
Same answer applies as to the posters above. No plane ever hit WTC 7 and no-one has ever claimed so. For some curious reason, the collapse of WTC 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 commissions report at all. Wonder why that might be?
You might have a point if a plane actually hit WTC 7. None ever did. The claim is that falling debris from the twin towers (WTC 1 and 2) damaged building seven, started a fire and caused it to collapse into its own footprint. Yeah, right...
So, which plane hit the WTC 7 again? I know planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2, but none ever hit building seven.
Truther is a term used for some idiot who believes 9/11 was the result of aliens, bad diarrhea or a massive government conspiracy by a government so stupid it sent machine huns to mexican drug lords just to see what would happen.
And what do you call one stupid enough to believe an ordinary office fire could cause a building to collapse in a way that only a handful of highly specialized demolition companies in the whole world could accomplish? "Naïve" is the kindest word that comes to mind. WTC 7 collapse
And the Swedish authorities have repeatedly declined invitations to come over to London and perform the interview at the Ecuadorian embassy. Therefore, it's Swedish law enforcement preventing the situation from resolving. Source
I watched the video yesterday and continued today. (It's quite long, over 5 hours.) I was impressed. I would recommend that anyone that proclaims to be open to debate to watch at least the segments that discuss the glaring faults in the official report as well as those that compare the building collapses to other similar events. Quite an eye opener.
Would this happen to be Kim Dotcom?
No, but they can be sold to others (cheaply), who in turn don't have any reason to buy new bonds, which stops the flow of money to the US.
True to some extent, but the Finnish copyright law as it is written today goes above and beyond what is demanded in the treaties. This is one of the things this initiative is trying to correct. Lowering penalties for infringement, allowing more "fair use" scenarios and promoting legal distribution options is what this is about. Not about rolling back any treaties.
No, you aren't going to make it back. One way. The End. Full Stop.
You don't know that. If you stay, say, 30 years on Mars, they land more people and more equipment as the years go by, more and more frequently as the tech develops and matures. One day a return trip would certainly be available. It might not be cheap (in the beginning), but hey, if you have been working on Mars for 30 years, you might be able to afford it. If nothing else, your fame from being among the first martian explorers might land you a nice advertisement gig to pay for the trip home.
Mr. Ballmer? Is that you?
I'll just leave this here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt
There's a quote: http://www.facebook.com/JollaMobile/posts/502893053077328
I suggest just going to elementary schools and watching the kids play wistfully. That provides children without the pain of actually, you know, having them.
I did that. It got me arrested. :(
"The 1980's are calling for their foreign policy back" -- Barack Obama
Well, the Jerk Store called, and they're running out of you! -- Mitt Romney
"What's the difference? You're their all time best seller!" - Barack Obama
Did you even read the article? One of the examples is young people taking pictures of themselves, which makes them child pornographers in the eyes of the law. Is that reasonable? How is that in any way exploitation?