No problem, as I realized upon re-reading that I had misunderstood the point of your post. I find it somewhat ironic in this era that many of us have no qualms about loosening the term "war" to mean any kind of struggle against something intangible, whereas those same people sometimes have no issue at all NOT applying the term "war" to mean actual large scale combat. Every time I see these kinds of shenanigans, I'm reminded of the opening part of Dorothy Sayer's essay _The Lost Tools of Learning_ where she describes the lack of definition in many of the debates people have. That is the problem here.
I can only surmise that only people with limited understandings of history, politics, self-justification, etc... would consider major conflicts such as the Korean Police Action to not be a war. Obviously a country not officially declaring a war raises some issues with _itself_ regarding legality, funding, image, and so on, but the 1000 year view of the situation is the same -- lotsa people from conflicting sides fighting and killing each other in an armed struggle. That's a war. Perhaps some of these people should go visit a "police" zone and get all intimate with the differences that they are obviously going to notice between a police action and a war/battle.
Is it still considered war if a country declares war on someone else, yet neither side ever come to battle?
Nope, if one is willing to relocate, engineering jobs are pretty plentiful and well-paying. If you go the route that I did (tech school -> four-year degree), it's in many ways even easier to get a job and much cheaper.
And frankly that's all this topic seems to be about. Cost of college vs return in lifetime wages. If that's the argument, then one should strive to lower the former while still gaining the skills and know-how, and then try to raise the latter. Of course many will argue that that is not the point of higher education, and I would agree to some extent but the reality in many peoples' minds is that school pays off in wealth.
True, and don't forget, there are still a fair number of affordable schools across the country if one is willing to relocate for it. Not every university in the USA costs $20,000 a year. And I'd imagine that in other countries where higher education is much cheaper or "free" that this whole argument of return on investment is silly.
Wait a minute, are you implying that because the article gave us an anecdote of a single person who got wealthy after dropping out of university, that that wouldn't necessarily be the case for the vast majority of people? You're implying that for a large portion of the population that a university degree still creates a lot of opportunity? Strange... I think I'll believe the summary over your logic!
I'd say that even for the bottom in the talent category (mind you I'm not talking the REALLY bottom, as those are hopeless cases), a college or university degree from an affordable school is ultimately worthwhile. If it's a degree that can get you somewhere, that is.
I always assumed something like this was the case, but, never really looked into it.
The whole "dvorak superiority" thing always seemed to be based on little to nothing. I mean... I learned the same ABC song as most everyone else.... but the order of letters hardly matters really, its just a memorization tool, and, of course, it helps make sure the list is correct when every student writes the letters in the same order.
Sure letters are used with different frequencies, so in a given language different letters have different frequencies of use... so it makes sense that some orderings for typing may be better than others for that reason.... but... letter frequencies and position within the alphabet are totally unrelated (or else we would start with E)
I mean yes, it may help in slightly decreasing the amount of time it takes to learn to touch type, but, thats a pretty minor benefit. How much of a difference would learning to tie your shoes with a few minutes less effort be, over the course of your life? You do a lot more typing than learning to type and in the end...any layout is just something you will memorize.
I would be shocked if any benefit from the letter order thats not based on (or happens to satisfy) placing frequently used letters in places advantageous to their quick use (as was mentioned... putting frequently used keys farther apapart may increase speed due to encouraging hand alternation)
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the pages of Michael Capewell, Peter Klausler, etc.. These guys (and others) have for years been trying to find ultimate keyboard layouts, and all of them say that Dvorak really isn't all it's claimed to be.
First of all, I think for a meaningful discussion on this issue we need to be clear what we are talking about. "Teaching kids how to learn" is pretty vague, especially with that darned difficult to understand word "how." Anyway, I agree with you partly and with ShieldW0lf partly, as he is correct in letting children explore and play (until a certain age) and that the current "educational system" is anything but, and you are correct in your latter part, although it is somewhat obvious or at least should be. I disagree with you when you seem to imply (sorry if that's not the intent) that rote memorization is somehow bad, as memorization for young children is particularly powerful. The method by which it is done is really the issue -- children under say age 7 or 8 should not be held to a curriculum and should not be pushed in the same way one could push an older person. They memorize simply by mimicry and we take for granted all the diverse actions that children memorize and thus perform -- our jobs as parents would be unbearably difficult if this were not so.
Anyway, I will provide a link to Dorothy Sayer's excellent essay "The Lost Tools of Learning," in which she addresses these issues in much more depth and more eloquently. As a muslim, the essay is particularly relevant as it is a reaffirmation our traditional method of upbringing (although we generally would replace Latin with Arabic, but nonetheless). This piece is more important now than when it was first issued in 1947!
Some information I linked from other places. Courtesy of Lew Rockwell, Paul C. Roberts and others. It is just a taste of the evidence. Some skill in reading between the lines is necessary.
At this stage of the game, to not realize what is going on is a mark of foolishness or outright malevolence. People of this ilk always claim to want evidence, but what they really desire is to delay and to destroy the intellectual capacity of those who notice the fraud (as if that word were sufficient to explain this usurious system we live in).
------------- 1) First some reality: Story lead (Jun 15, 2009): The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
Telling points: The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society. --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
2) Story lead (Jun 29, 2008): The Bush administration told Congress last year of a secret plan to dramatically expand covert operations inside Iran as part of a long-running effort to destabilize the country's ruling regime, according to a report published yesterday.
The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from spying on Iran's nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country's ruling clerics, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine. --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901881_pf.html
3) Neocon Kenneth Timmerman day before elections (Jun 11, 2009): Quote: And then, there's the talk of a "green revolution" in Tehran, named for the omnipresent green scarves
A statement of this sort (your first sentence) is pretty meaningless. The fact that you even say that is evidence that you lack taqwa, whether you infer that to mean the intended Islamic meaning or a mishmash of ideals you pen for yourself. Many people are genuinely not the way you state they are and its unfortunate that you do not understand that, for if you did you would be careful with your words. Live a life amongst these people for some time and you will not come back the same.
As for your last statement about being holier than thou -- first, a truly pious or knowledgeable person would not strike someone in that fashion. Their legacy is generally that they are invisible to those who cannot recognize them for what they are. Second, if someone of this stature actually recommended an action to you, you would not feel threatened with a 'holier than thou' mentality -- you would either entirely miss the point or you would take the advice seriously. Most people in this position aren't lecturing anyway -- they are busy purifying their own hearts. And finally, a wise person would only consider someone else being 'holier than thou' if he saw some sort of contradiction in what was being said. Alas, that is the issue with the politician, by and large.
If you haven't already, I think you should take a look at the writings of Shaykh AbdalQadir As-Sufi. Even if you are not a Muslim, I think your history of posting shows you to be quite understanding to the position of serious Muslims, the likes of which the world hardly knows unfortunately. Here's a sample but feel free to investigate the website. Peace.
Amen. The many myths that surround the Nazis and the 'you know what' are pretty impressive if one even remotely tries to understand why they are so viciously defended.
I still haven't seen a video showing anything but roughly free fall speeds of a tower collapsing. How fast have high rise buildings collapsed before that weren't demolished? Did they all fall neatly into their own footprint? The point would be dropped if we were shown any evidence against it. If anything, why does the WTC 7 collapse look exactly like a controlled demolition (the other two towers fall from the top)?
I don't understand your reasoning for the BBC claim. Why would they say it has already collapsed? If they presumed it might collapse, they should say that. It's not hard to see a building collapse, so why would they say it did when it didn't? I'm not blaming the BBC for being involved in the scheme and it's likely no BBC reporter would immediately recognize the WTC 7 building. But by that very logic, how would they know which building DID collapse? If they can't recognize the building if it's standing, why would they recognize it if it fell?
As for the trading, it's not just UAL. It's the trading of options related precisely to those entities that would be affected by it. There were no other unusual trades involving other airlines.
As for the FBI investigating, obviously it is their job. However, if the truth of the matter is the objective (which it surely isn't), there should be an independent investigation, which would in my opinion probably require someone outside the USA heh. Already the whole 9/11 Commission Report committee (which consisted almost entirely of people connected to the Bush administration) has given the truth a bad name.
I've been doing research on the 9/11 story for some time now, and recently I've been in contact with Kevin Barrett (who is a big figure in the movement). He's shown me some resources which more or less clinch it for me that this was an inside job. Now that doesn't mean it was a massive conspiracy. If true, it was likely only a handful of people who knew the situation, and a bunch of other people 'just doing their jobs' and who didn't know exactly what they were doing.
The overall circumstantial evidence for the case that it was an inside job is pretty much overwhelming. The outright lies by the pentagon concerning the FAA situation, the failure to intercept planes (not talking about shooting them), the changing stories -- heh, first the pentagon stated that no jets were scrambled until after the pentagon was hit. Well, that was probably true, but once they realized that incriminated them, they said they were scrambled from certain bases, but of course not the ones that were right next to New York and Washington. But, even from the distant bases they were said to have taken off from, the planes theoretically would have still been able to intercept had they gone fast enough. I don't have the evidence in front of me right now so I can't be terribly specific, but David Ray Griffin has calculated from the pentagon's story that jets that were scrambled to the Pentagon must have only been flying at about 300 mph for the story to line up. What does that say?
Anyway, I don't post much so adding me to the friend's list isn't very rewarding hehe. I keep saying this, but have you read any of David Ray Griffin's books? People like Chomsky who are normally admirable seem to think that the neocons or whoever did this job couldn't possibly have done it because they are just too inept. And he points at Iraq as an example. Unfortunately, I've been told by people who probably know what they are talking about that what's happening in Iraq isn't really considered a failure. Robert Baer, the former CIA agent, in the intro to See No Evil wrote that when the dust settles, American's will see that 9/11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure. It's hard to tell what he meant, but check out the following URL for an interview with him where he talks about 9/11: http://www.911blogger.com/node/1780
Look, I have nothing against a second, exhaustive investigation and review of evidence. Are there holes? Yes. Are parts of the report incomplete? Yes - but that is not to say that the incomplete reports will never be finished (taking time to get it done well is a good thing)
Sadly, I don't see any push from any group/government with the financial backing to actually do a serious investigation. Of course it takes time, but because it takes time to do it you actually have to START it.
As for the free fall thing, every video I've seen shows the building collapsing unhindered, and every video showing the entire collapse shows them falling at roughly free fall speed. Show me a video where this is not the case.
For the BBC, I'm not sure what the reason for it is. The BBC is not necessarily complicit, just not doing their job. Using your favorite Ockham's Razor here would seem to imply that SOMEONE told the BBC that the building was either going to collapse or had already collapsed. Why would the reporter say it had collapsed when the building is still CLEARLY VISIBILE just behind her? (Youtube video, check other videos as well) That's not normal. Now what evidence was there saying that building 7 would collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane. There were other buildings in the area that didn't collapse that were also on fire, but were there any reports saying they were going to collapse? The selectiveness of the reporting is unusual.
Silverstein's comment is not evidence for complicity; however, he purchased the building just 6 months prior to 9/11 and insured it against TERRORISM. The building hadn't changed ownership in 33 years. First order of business was replacing the security company with another one, which just happened to have Marvin Bush, W's brother, on the board of directors, and Marvin's cousin as the CEO. This same Securacom security company also did security work for Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, which also play in 9/11. One must also understand that WTC 7 and I believe also the other two (don't quote me on this though) were not in the best of financial shape. The NY Port Authority had tried for years to get permission to demolish the buildings, without success. It also was looking at some costly renovations, on the order of billions! Blowing the buildings up would not only not cost them money, they'd get money from insurance. Now if one also takes into account some of the documents located in WTC 7, very sensitive documents looking into Enron and Worldcom and probably others, the whole picture starts to get interesting. These pieces of information are not proof of conspiracy to blow up the towers, but I will say they sure raise some serious questions, none of which have been investigated.
Another interesting aspect of the story were the unusual trades in the days just before the attacks. There was a large surge in purchases of 1) put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines, of 2) put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group, of 3) put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, in 4) purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon, in 5) purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes (info from 9/11 research, read article here). Whoever made the $2.5 million on trading United Airlines has yet to claim it.
How does the 9/11 Commission Report mention it? In a footnote. This is a what it says (see here , Chapter 5, note 130)
130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/1
How can one explain the collapse of the towers? I dunno, when a jumbo-jet full of jet fuel crashes into a building at high speed and then burns hot and long enough to weaken* the structural steel, collapse will start. Once the support is gone the structure is compromised and the undamaged floors below can't hold back the falling upper floors. (*to answer "jet fuel can't melt steel" tin-foil-types, you only need to heat it enough to weaken it below the loading, not melt it, for structural steel to fail. Jet fuel can do that handily.)
Even if the fire weakened the steel, why did the building collapse at roughly free fall speed? The fire surely wasn't raging on the lower floors. How does the top of a building fall unhindered through the lower floors at free fall speed without support from underneath being removed? If it wasn't demolition, why weren't any of the 47 giant steel columns sticking up out of the rubble about 20 stories?
As for WTC #7, two large skyscrapers rained tons of debris (literally tons of steel and concrete) on it, it caught fire and was allowed to burn. There were large diesel fuel tanks for backup generators that probably fueled this fire as well. The FDNY had more important things on their hands and didn't wan't to risk more life unnecessarily. The fact that it contained things "convenient to dispose" for some shadow conspiracy is irrelevant, it was in a disaster zone and lots of other buildings were damaged to near collapse, and many buildings in that area probably fit the criteria of "convenient to dispose of".
What evidence is there that there was a raging fire at WTC 7? What evidence is there that any of the diesel tanks were breached? What evidence is there that raging fires have brought down other high rise structures? How do you explain the BBC reporting that the WTC 7 had collapsed approximately 20 minutes before it actually DID? How do you explain Larry Silverstein's statement that he told the firefighters to 'pull it'? Why didn't the 9/11 Commission Report even address WTC 7? At least the FEMA report tried to address, but this page explains some of the problems with that account. The FEMA report has even gone on to say that your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 has a low probability (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf). See section 8.2.5 I believe.
We know Al Qaeda tried to blow it up once before, there is pretty damn compelling evidence that they tried again and succeeded. These conspiracies not only fail Ockham's razor, they fail a simple logic-check: if there existed a conspiracy powerful enough to orchestrate the collapse of WTC #7 to get rid of data and services, they would be powerful enough to accomplish it by means less crude than blowing up two adjacent buildings and then collapsing it in the mayhem.
Once again someone knows who Al Qaeda is; let me guess, you heard it on the news or read it in a book? 'Al Qaeda' tried to blow up the WTC once before, and I presume you're referring to the '93 bombing. Interesting how all of the people implicated in it (except the FBI informant) were on the CIA payroll in Afghanistan.
As for the Ockham's razor argument, you forget also the motivation the neocons might have to 'blow up' the buildings by planes. The reasons for collapsing the twin towers is pretty easy to detect, and the reason for using planes isn't terribly difficult to discern as well (fear from the sky helps secure funding for missile defense and other new weapons, easier to explain hijackings bringing down towers than bombs placed within the building, etc). WTC 7 was conveniently located to bring it down in the process and few would question it when there were two much more exciting collapses nearby and something at the Pentagon. The fact that WTC 7 is hardly ever mentioned in the media and was totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report seems to support the idea that no one
Re:And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
WTC #7 -- you start counting when the penthouse falls. Ok, let's try that. Then, why is the front of the building still standing? Oh, that's right, there is something below it still holding it up! If you had counted the time that the penthouse took to fall, I'm sure it would have been around free fall speed. However, since we don't have any video of the entire collapse of the penthouse, we take another reference point, like the roof of the front of the building. When that starts to collapse (IE, there is nothing supporting it anymore), the building only takes 6.5 seconds to fall, roughly free fall speed.
Now, you also say that both towers took over 15 seconds to collapse. Which video shows that? Even the 9/11 commission, which got so much wrong, gets THIS fact right when it says the south tower took 10 seconds to collapse - http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9 .htm
Have you actually read The New Pearl Harbor or The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions? Do you actually comprehend the sheer number of coincidences of catastrophic failure one would have to accept in order to stand by the official story? Doesn't seem so yet. Keep reading up on the evidence or read The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson to figure out that even the official story doesn't hold up consistently.
Have you actually examined any of the evidence that the so-called conspiracy theorists on 9/11 have put forth. Don't forget they only go by what is publicly available as evidence, whereas the numerous and well-funded investigative committees set up by the government get to use all that top secret information to turn out works like the 9/11 Commission Report, which coincidentally doesn't even mention WTC #7 and denies the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that made up the core of the two towers.
Sites such as 911truth.org are great places to start if you want to see the evidence of the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists." The real conspiracy theory happens to be the official story -- 19 arab hijackers whose names weren't on any of the flight manifests fly planes into two towers, fly one plane close enough to the pentagon without getting shot down or even intercepted, and crash one plane into the ground? Where's the real evidence for that. One would think there'd be some serious investigation into that if it were true. Read David Ray Griffin's two books - The New Pearl Harbor, and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.
The point of the 9/11 Truth movement is not so much to say 'this is what happened.' We don't have access to all the evidence nor do we have the money to do intensive interviews and so on. The point of the movement is to determine what really did happen, and that involves and independent investigation, preferably a few of them, which is thorough.
Oh, and by the way, how do you explain the collapse of the three world trade center buildings if you do not accept controlled demolition? Look at all the entities that were stationed in WTC #7 and tell me that it wasn't convenient that that building collapsed?
Re:And sometimes...those myths are true...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
>On the other hand...stupid conspiracies like "whoever heard of >fire melting steel" are annoying. Especially since anyone in >manufacturing of steel has heard of fire melting steel. As for >fire not being able to melt and bring down a structure. The >recent collapse of an interstate highway due to a gasoline fire >which caused a concrete re-inforced steel structure designed not >just to bear it's own weight but that of tons and tons of vehicles. >Proved that fire can indeed melt steel and collapse structures.
I take it you are referencing 9/11 here with that comment. I'm not sure exactly what point you are advocating, but it sounds somewhat like a defense of the official story. However, in the WTC situation, even if the fire did melt the steel sufficiently to weaken the structure and cause the top to collapse, why did the building collapse at free fall speed? The fires in the two towers were at the top floors, not the bottom. And why did the south tower collapse first, when it was hit second, burned a lot less, and a fair amount of the jet's fuel was ejected out the side of the building (the plane hit the corner of the tower). Could it possibly be because the fire was dying out and it wouldn't make sense for the building to collapse if it wasn't on fire anymore?
Oh wait, wasn't the lobby also destroyed? I suppose it's safe to say there that fire traveled the 1000 feet or so through the 'hermetically' sealed central core that had fail safes against fire doing that exact thing (and which photographic evidence of that day shows, the fires were confined to the top floors). Or maybe it's easier just to accept that there were explosions, but it would be even easier to accept that if there was some of the steel leftover from the _crime scene_. Instead the steel was loaded as quickly as possible onto boats and melted down in Asia. Sounds like what anyone would do when they want to determine what really happened.
To accept the official story of 9/11 is to accept a very long chain of coincidences without much if any corroborating evidence and with a lot of evidence of coverup. Excellent books on the topic are David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. If you can read those two books and still accept the official story without any hesitation, well good luck.
Yes, the Taliban was more or less created by the CIA, but which of the so-called Islamic Fundamentalist movements of recent memory haven't been created or heavily supported by it? (The Pakistani ISI, the insurgency in Iraq, the Wahabbi Saudi regime, the Taliban, etc?)
But that's not the point. The point is that this charade paraded around that Bin Laden masterminded this attack and that the Taliban supported him is just the official story. There were plans to attack the Taliban before, and the sole reason being that they didn't go along with the oil pipeline.
Arguing about the creations of the CIA is within the framework of acceptable discussion. Arguing that Bin Laden, just a patsy more than likely and possibly even an agent, was trained and funded by the CIA is also within that allowed framework. But it misses the picture. These things aren't unintentional, they aren't accidents of supporting some 'bad' guy for the hope he serves our purpose at that point in time. That's the allowed thought. The unallowed thought is saying that this is all a setup, it's intentional. You want to know who was behind 9/11? You just look at the Pakistani ISI (owned by the USA), you look at the CIA or its parallel structure, you look at high-ranking neocons, and you more than ANYTHING look at those who profit, and not only financially -- the bankers.
Look outside the box, there's a wealth of information available if you want to search. 9/11 was just the latest false-flag attack used as a means of control. It by no means will be the last nor the worst. It's just possibly one of the most believed when there is a wealth of evidence against it. The Taliban may not have been pretty to the westerner, but that may have been by design. The USA loves fundamentalists of any kind -- they are bred to do the CIA's bidding, they are easy straw-men to tear down and attack, and they are often oblivious to the fact they've been used. Why do the work yourself when you can have someone else do it AND be able to legitimately get rid of them at a later time?
>Here in Canada, we could see the blatant lies of George Bush... >and stayed out of Iraq... and instead contribute to the effort >in Afghanistan, you know, the place 911 was run from remember?
But this comment. You actually know where 9/11 was run from? And you say it was Afghanistan??? Does that even make any SENSE? Try Pakistan, USA, and probably Saudi Arabia (those passports and 'hijacker' identities came from somewhere, eh?). That any Afghanis short of ISI members took part in it is pretty hard to believe; they were just the patsies when the Taliban failed to allow the USA to build their oil pipeline through the country as they had initially promised.
Study up a bit more on what really happened on 9/11 and the motivations and causes of it and maybe you'll start rethinking your comment and more importantly how you came to hold/believe it.
-I dunno, but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.
--I, for one, am not over 50 but certainly associate The Beatles and "Apple" so perhaps you should reconsider making blanket statements.
Holy shit, case closed Jobs! We're back in third grade when we totally blow out of context a blanket statement. I used to make these cool statements (I'm only 16 but I've been listening to since I was barely able to walk, am I cool yet?) when I was 16 and boasting about how I listened to 'gnarly' music. Everyone was impressed.
I'm not over 50, but I certainly don't associate The Beatles and the Apple name together. I'm sure some people under 50 do. I'm sure some people over 50 do. AND, I'm even sure some people over 50 DON'T. There are probably even camps on both sides who do a bit of both. A blanket statement is useful 'cuz it's just an exaggerated statement that almost by necessity isn't true, but serves to illustrate a point. I think in this case the point is that since the Beatles' Apple hasn't released anything new in many years or done anything besides possibly turning out balls-to-the-wall loud remastered versions of some greatest hits crap, their name would be almost unknown except to those people who were around when the Beats started Apple.
Now, this blanket statement is false. Anyone who can read a Caillou or a Spot book can tell you that. But I would perhaps wager $1 to say that the meat of his statement is more or less true, meaning that people of a certain age are more likely to know blah blah blah about Apple (Beat edition). And if it's pretty much totally false, well then the original poster was a dumbass. Maybe he is anyway.
Sure, he could have avoided making a blanket statement. No one would get away with (hopefully) making one in a courtroom, but on Slashdot they fit right in with all the idiocy and somewhat insightful/interesting/troll/funny/etc posts.
Now, some blanket statements are just stupid. Often they involve race, sex, etc... But sometimes they're not.
Age is probably a common one where it's not completely stupid. "Man, only people under 30 listen to that rap stuff."
Social status - "Only geeks care about license X when writing a program."
Occupation - "There isn't a trucker alive who hasn't used a CB."
Social class - "Those damn bankers only care about making and taking money."
Viewing habits - "What, you've never seen Star Wars? EVERYONE has seen Star Wars."
Etc... - "All this abstract algerbra stuff is impossible!"
Is there anything more I should add? I'm expecting an offended response.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen (although I will take paid lunches from time to time).
Wow, never heard of this. Looks pretty incredible. Thanks for the links as well.
Aha...Joss Whedon is not a genius. It turns out he just plagiarized his ideas from Fluffy the Vampire Slayer :(
No problem, as I realized upon re-reading that I had misunderstood the point of your post. I find it somewhat ironic in this era that many of us have no qualms about loosening the term "war" to mean any kind of struggle against something intangible, whereas those same people sometimes have no issue at all NOT applying the term "war" to mean actual large scale combat. Every time I see these kinds of shenanigans, I'm reminded of the opening part of Dorothy Sayer's essay _The Lost Tools of Learning_ where she describes the lack of definition in many of the debates people have. That is the problem here.
I can only surmise that only people with limited understandings of history, politics, self-justification, etc... would consider major conflicts such as the Korean Police Action to not be a war. Obviously a country not officially declaring a war raises some issues with _itself_ regarding legality, funding, image, and so on, but the 1000 year view of the situation is the same -- lotsa people from conflicting sides fighting and killing each other in an armed struggle. That's a war. Perhaps some of these people should go visit a "police" zone and get all intimate with the differences that they are obviously going to notice between a police action and a war/battle.
Is it still considered war if a country declares war on someone else, yet neither side ever come to battle?
Nope, if one is willing to relocate, engineering jobs are pretty plentiful and well-paying. If you go the route that I did (tech school -> four-year degree), it's in many ways even easier to get a job and much cheaper.
And frankly that's all this topic seems to be about. Cost of college vs return in lifetime wages. If that's the argument, then one should strive to lower the former while still gaining the skills and know-how, and then try to raise the latter. Of course many will argue that that is not the point of higher education, and I would agree to some extent but the reality in many peoples' minds is that school pays off in wealth.
True, and don't forget, there are still a fair number of affordable schools across the country if one is willing to relocate for it. Not every university in the USA costs $20,000 a year. And I'd imagine that in other countries where higher education is much cheaper or "free" that this whole argument of return on investment is silly.
Wait a minute, are you implying that because the article gave us an anecdote of a single person who got wealthy after dropping out of university, that that wouldn't necessarily be the case for the vast majority of people? You're implying that for a large portion of the population that a university degree still creates a lot of opportunity? Strange... I think I'll believe the summary over your logic!
I'd say that even for the bottom in the talent category (mind you I'm not talking the REALLY bottom, as those are hopeless cases), a college or university degree from an affordable school is ultimately worthwhile. If it's a degree that can get you somewhere, that is.
And in other news, Israel has recently decided to develop a fully operational space program, with its first destinations to be Saturn and Jupiter.
I always assumed something like this was the case, but, never really looked into it.
The whole "dvorak superiority" thing always seemed to be based on little to nothing. I mean... I learned the same ABC song as most everyone else.... but the order of letters hardly matters really, its just a memorization tool, and, of course, it helps make sure the list is correct when every student writes the letters in the same order.
Sure letters are used with different frequencies, so in a given language different letters have different frequencies of use... so it makes sense that some orderings for typing may be better than others for that reason.... but... letter frequencies and position within the alphabet are totally unrelated (or else we would start with E)
I mean yes, it may help in slightly decreasing the amount of time it takes to learn to touch type, but, thats a pretty minor benefit. How much of a difference would learning to tie your shoes with a few minutes less effort be, over the course of your life? You do a lot more typing than learning to type and in the end...any layout is just something you will memorize.
I would be shocked if any benefit from the letter order thats not based on (or happens to satisfy) placing frequently used letters in places advantageous to their quick use (as was mentioned... putting frequently used keys farther apapart may increase speed due to encouraging hand alternation)
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the pages of Michael Capewell, Peter Klausler, etc.. These guys (and others) have for years been trying to find ultimate keyboard layouts, and all of them say that Dvorak really isn't all it's claimed to be.
The page is here: http://www.michaelcapewell.com/projects/keyboard/layout_capewell.htm
First of all, I think for a meaningful discussion on this issue we need to be clear what we are talking about. "Teaching kids how to learn" is pretty vague, especially with that darned difficult to understand word "how." Anyway, I agree with you partly and with ShieldW0lf partly, as he is correct in letting children explore and play (until a certain age) and that the current "educational system" is anything but, and you are correct in your latter part, although it is somewhat obvious or at least should be. I disagree with you when you seem to imply (sorry if that's not the intent) that rote memorization is somehow bad, as memorization for young children is particularly powerful. The method by which it is done is really the issue -- children under say age 7 or 8 should not be held to a curriculum and should not be pushed in the same way one could push an older person. They memorize simply by mimicry and we take for granted all the diverse actions that children memorize and thus perform -- our jobs as parents would be unbearably difficult if this were not so.
Anyway, I will provide a link to Dorothy Sayer's excellent essay "The Lost Tools of Learning," in which she addresses these issues in much more depth and more eloquently. As a muslim, the essay is particularly relevant as it is a reaffirmation our traditional method of upbringing (although we generally would replace Latin with Arabic, but nonetheless). This piece is more important now than when it was first issued in 1947!
http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
Background -- see other "color" revolutions
Some information I linked from other places. Courtesy of Lew Rockwell, Paul C. Roberts and others. It is just a taste of the evidence. Some skill in reading between the lines is necessary.
At this stage of the game, to not realize what is going on is a mark of foolishness or outright malevolence. People of this ilk always claim to want evidence, but what they really desire is to delay and to destroy the intellectual capacity of those who notice the fraud (as if that word were sufficient to explain this usurious system we live in).
-------------
1) First some reality:
Story lead (Jun 15, 2009): The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
Telling points: The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.
--- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
2) Story lead (Jun 29, 2008): The Bush administration told Congress last year of a secret plan to dramatically expand covert operations inside Iran as part of a long-running effort to destabilize the country's ruling regime, according to a report published yesterday.
The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from spying on Iran's nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country's ruling clerics, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine.
--- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901881_pf.html
3) Neocon Kenneth Timmerman day before elections (Jun 11, 2009):
Quote: And then, there's the talk of a "green revolution" in Tehran, named for the omnipresent green scarves
A statement of this sort (your first sentence) is pretty meaningless. The fact that you even say that is evidence that you lack taqwa, whether you infer that to mean the intended Islamic meaning or a mishmash of ideals you pen for yourself. Many people are genuinely not the way you state they are and its unfortunate that you do not understand that, for if you did you would be careful with your words. Live a life amongst these people for some time and you will not come back the same.
As for your last statement about being holier than thou -- first, a truly pious or knowledgeable person would not strike someone in that fashion. Their legacy is generally that they are invisible to those who cannot recognize them for what they are. Second, if someone of this stature actually recommended an action to you, you would not feel threatened with a 'holier than thou' mentality -- you would either entirely miss the point or you would take the advice seriously. Most people in this position aren't lecturing anyway -- they are busy purifying their own hearts. And finally, a wise person would only consider someone else being 'holier than thou' if he saw some sort of contradiction in what was being said. Alas, that is the issue with the politician, by and large.
Food for thought.
If you haven't already, I think you should take a look at the writings of Shaykh AbdalQadir As-Sufi. Even if you are not a Muslim, I think your history of posting shows you to be quite understanding to the position of serious Muslims, the likes of which the world hardly knows unfortunately. Here's a sample but feel free to investigate the website. Peace.
http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/Art050_08122005.html
Amen. The many myths that surround the Nazis and the 'you know what' are pretty impressive if one even remotely tries to understand why they are so viciously defended.
Umm...don't forget, it's Quebec, so it'd probably say défense de stationner.
Greets,
I still haven't seen a video showing anything but roughly free fall speeds of a tower collapsing. How fast have high rise buildings collapsed before that weren't demolished? Did they all fall neatly into their own footprint? The point would be dropped if we were shown any evidence against it. If anything, why does the WTC 7 collapse look exactly like a controlled demolition (the other two towers fall from the top)?
I don't understand your reasoning for the BBC claim. Why would they say it has already collapsed? If they presumed it might collapse, they should say that. It's not hard to see a building collapse, so why would they say it did when it didn't? I'm not blaming the BBC for being involved in the scheme and it's likely no BBC reporter would immediately recognize the WTC 7 building. But by that very logic, how would they know which building DID collapse? If they can't recognize the building if it's standing, why would they recognize it if it fell?
As for the trading, it's not just UAL. It's the trading of options related precisely to those entities that would be affected by it. There were no other unusual trades involving other airlines.
As for the FBI investigating, obviously it is their job. However, if the truth of the matter is the objective (which it surely isn't), there should be an independent investigation, which would in my opinion probably require someone outside the USA heh. Already the whole 9/11 Commission Report committee (which consisted almost entirely of people connected to the Bush administration) has given the truth a bad name.
I've been doing research on the 9/11 story for some time now, and recently I've been in contact with Kevin Barrett (who is a big figure in the movement). He's shown me some resources which more or less clinch it for me that this was an inside job. Now that doesn't mean it was a massive conspiracy. If true, it was likely only a handful of people who knew the situation, and a bunch of other people 'just doing their jobs' and who didn't know exactly what they were doing.
The overall circumstantial evidence for the case that it was an inside job is pretty much overwhelming. The outright lies by the pentagon concerning the FAA situation, the failure to intercept planes (not talking about shooting them), the changing stories -- heh, first the pentagon stated that no jets were scrambled until after the pentagon was hit. Well, that was probably true, but once they realized that incriminated them, they said they were scrambled from certain bases, but of course not the ones that were right next to New York and Washington. But, even from the distant bases they were said to have taken off from, the planes theoretically would have still been able to intercept had they gone fast enough. I don't have the evidence in front of me right now so I can't be terribly specific, but David Ray Griffin has calculated from the pentagon's story that jets that were scrambled to the Pentagon must have only been flying at about 300 mph for the story to line up. What does that say?
Anyway, I don't post much so adding me to the friend's list isn't very rewarding hehe. I keep saying this, but have you read any of David Ray Griffin's books? People like Chomsky who are normally admirable seem to think that the neocons or whoever did this job couldn't possibly have done it because they are just too inept. And he points at Iraq as an example. Unfortunately, I've been told by people who probably know what they are talking about that what's happening in Iraq isn't really considered a failure. Robert Baer, the former CIA agent, in the intro to See No Evil wrote that when the dust settles, American's will see that 9/11 was a triumph for the intelligence community, not a failure. It's hard to tell what he meant, but check out the following URL for an interview with him where he talks about 9/11: http://www.911blogger.com/node/1780
For more interesting reading if you can stomac
Sadly, I don't see any push from any group/government with the financial backing to actually do a serious investigation. Of course it takes time, but because it takes time to do it you actually have to START it.
As for the free fall thing, every video I've seen shows the building collapsing unhindered, and every video showing the entire collapse shows them falling at roughly free fall speed. Show me a video where this is not the case.
For the BBC, I'm not sure what the reason for it is. The BBC is not necessarily complicit, just not doing their job. Using your favorite Ockham's Razor here would seem to imply that SOMEONE told the BBC that the building was either going to collapse or had already collapsed. Why would the reporter say it had collapsed when the building is still CLEARLY VISIBILE just behind her? (Youtube video, check other videos as well) That's not normal. Now what evidence was there saying that building 7 would collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane. There were other buildings in the area that didn't collapse that were also on fire, but were there any reports saying they were going to collapse? The selectiveness of the reporting is unusual.
Silverstein's comment is not evidence for complicity; however, he purchased the building just 6 months prior to 9/11 and insured it against TERRORISM. The building hadn't changed ownership in 33 years. First order of business was replacing the security company with another one, which just happened to have Marvin Bush, W's brother, on the board of directors, and Marvin's cousin as the CEO. This same Securacom security company also did security work for Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, which also play in 9/11. One must also understand that WTC 7 and I believe also the other two (don't quote me on this though) were not in the best of financial shape. The NY Port Authority had tried for years to get permission to demolish the buildings, without success. It also was looking at some costly renovations, on the order of billions! Blowing the buildings up would not only not cost them money, they'd get money from insurance. Now if one also takes into account some of the documents located in WTC 7, very sensitive documents looking into Enron and Worldcom and probably others, the whole picture starts to get interesting. These pieces of information are not proof of conspiracy to blow up the towers, but I will say they sure raise some serious questions, none of which have been investigated.
Another interesting aspect of the story were the unusual trades in the days just before the attacks. There was a large surge in purchases of 1) put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines, of 2) put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group, of 3) put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, in 4) purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon, in 5) purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes (info from 9/11 research, read article here). Whoever made the $2.5 million on trading United Airlines has yet to claim it.
How does the 9/11 Commission Report mention it? In a footnote. This is a what it says (see here , Chapter 5, note 130)
130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/1
Even if the fire weakened the steel, why did the building collapse at roughly free fall speed? The fire surely wasn't raging on the lower floors. How does the top of a building fall unhindered through the lower floors at free fall speed without support from underneath being removed? If it wasn't demolition, why weren't any of the 47 giant steel columns sticking up out of the rubble about 20 stories?
As for WTC #7, two large skyscrapers rained tons of debris (literally tons of steel and concrete) on it, it caught fire and was allowed to burn. There were large diesel fuel tanks for backup generators that probably fueled this fire as well. The FDNY had more important things on their hands and didn't wan't to risk more life unnecessarily. The fact that it contained things "convenient to dispose" for some shadow conspiracy is irrelevant, it was in a disaster zone and lots of other buildings were damaged to near collapse, and many buildings in that area probably fit the criteria of "convenient to dispose of".
What evidence is there that there was a raging fire at WTC 7? What evidence is there that any of the diesel tanks were breached? What evidence is there that raging fires have brought down other high rise structures? How do you explain the BBC reporting that the WTC 7 had collapsed approximately 20 minutes before it actually DID? How do you explain Larry Silverstein's statement that he told the firefighters to 'pull it'? Why didn't the 9/11 Commission Report even address WTC 7? At least the FEMA report tried to address, but this page explains some of the problems with that account. The FEMA report has even gone on to say that your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 has a low probability (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf). See section 8.2.5 I believe.
We know Al Qaeda tried to blow it up once before, there is pretty damn compelling evidence that they tried again and succeeded. These conspiracies not only fail Ockham's razor, they fail a simple logic-check: if there existed a conspiracy powerful enough to orchestrate the collapse of WTC #7 to get rid of data and services, they would be powerful enough to accomplish it by means less crude than blowing up two adjacent buildings and then collapsing it in the mayhem.
Once again someone knows who Al Qaeda is; let me guess, you heard it on the news or read it in a book? 'Al Qaeda' tried to blow up the WTC once before, and I presume you're referring to the '93 bombing. Interesting how all of the people implicated in it (except the FBI informant) were on the CIA payroll in Afghanistan.
As for the Ockham's razor argument, you forget also the motivation the neocons might have to 'blow up' the buildings by planes. The reasons for collapsing the twin towers is pretty easy to detect, and the reason for using planes isn't terribly difficult to discern as well (fear from the sky helps secure funding for missile defense and other new weapons, easier to explain hijackings bringing down towers than bombs placed within the building, etc). WTC 7 was conveniently located to bring it down in the process and few would question it when there were two much more exciting collapses nearby and something at the Pentagon. The fact that WTC 7 is hardly ever mentioned in the media and was totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report seems to support the idea that no one
WTC #7 -- you start counting when the penthouse falls. Ok, let's try that. Then, why is the front of the building still standing? Oh, that's right, there is something below it still holding it up! If you had counted the time that the penthouse took to fall, I'm sure it would have been around free fall speed. However, since we don't have any video of the entire collapse of the penthouse, we take another reference point, like the roof of the front of the building. When that starts to collapse (IE, there is nothing supporting it anymore), the building only takes 6.5 seconds to fall, roughly free fall speed.
9 .htm
Now, you also say that both towers took over 15 seconds to collapse. Which video shows that? Even the 9/11 commission, which got so much wrong, gets THIS fact right when it says the south tower took 10 seconds to collapse - http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch
Have you actually read The New Pearl Harbor or The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions? Do you actually comprehend the sheer number of coincidences of catastrophic failure one would have to accept in order to stand by the official story? Doesn't seem so yet. Keep reading up on the evidence or read The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson to figure out that even the official story doesn't hold up consistently.
Have you actually examined any of the evidence that the so-called conspiracy theorists on 9/11 have put forth. Don't forget they only go by what is publicly available as evidence, whereas the numerous and well-funded investigative committees set up by the government get to use all that top secret information to turn out works like the 9/11 Commission Report, which coincidentally doesn't even mention WTC #7 and denies the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that made up the core of the two towers.
Sites such as 911truth.org are great places to start if you want to see the evidence of the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists." The real conspiracy theory happens to be the official story -- 19 arab hijackers whose names weren't on any of the flight manifests fly planes into two towers, fly one plane close enough to the pentagon without getting shot down or even intercepted, and crash one plane into the ground? Where's the real evidence for that. One would think there'd be some serious investigation into that if it were true. Read David Ray Griffin's two books - The New Pearl Harbor, and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.
The point of the 9/11 Truth movement is not so much to say 'this is what happened.' We don't have access to all the evidence nor do we have the money to do intensive interviews and so on. The point of the movement is to determine what really did happen, and that involves and independent investigation, preferably a few of them, which is thorough.
Oh, and by the way, how do you explain the collapse of the three world trade center buildings if you do not accept controlled demolition? Look at all the entities that were stationed in WTC #7 and tell me that it wasn't convenient that that building collapsed?
>On the other hand...stupid conspiracies like "whoever heard of
>fire melting steel" are annoying. Especially since anyone in
>manufacturing of steel has heard of fire melting steel. As for
>fire not being able to melt and bring down a structure. The
>recent collapse of an interstate highway due to a gasoline fire
>which caused a concrete re-inforced steel structure designed not
>just to bear it's own weight but that of tons and tons of vehicles.
>Proved that fire can indeed melt steel and collapse structures.
I take it you are referencing 9/11 here with that comment. I'm not sure exactly what point you are advocating, but it sounds somewhat like a defense of the official story. However, in the WTC situation, even if the fire did melt the steel sufficiently to weaken the structure and cause the top to collapse, why did the building collapse at free fall speed? The fires in the two towers were at the top floors, not the bottom. And why did the south tower collapse first, when it was hit second, burned a lot less, and a fair amount of the jet's fuel was ejected out the side of the building (the plane hit the corner of the tower). Could it possibly be because the fire was dying out and it wouldn't make sense for the building to collapse if it wasn't on fire anymore?
Oh wait, wasn't the lobby also destroyed? I suppose it's safe to say there that fire traveled the 1000 feet or so through the 'hermetically' sealed central core that had fail safes against fire doing that exact thing (and which photographic evidence of that day shows, the fires were confined to the top floors). Or maybe it's easier just to accept that there were explosions, but it would be even easier to accept that if there was some of the steel leftover from the _crime scene_. Instead the steel was loaded as quickly as possible onto boats and melted down in Asia. Sounds like what anyone would do when they want to determine what really happened.
To accept the official story of 9/11 is to accept a very long chain of coincidences without much if any corroborating evidence and with a lot of evidence of coverup. Excellent books on the topic are David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. If you can read those two books and still accept the official story without any hesitation, well good luck.
Yes, the Taliban was more or less created by the CIA, but which of the so-called Islamic Fundamentalist movements of recent memory haven't been created or heavily supported by it? (The Pakistani ISI, the insurgency in Iraq, the Wahabbi Saudi regime, the Taliban, etc?)
But that's not the point. The point is that this charade paraded around that Bin Laden masterminded this attack and that the Taliban supported him is just the official story. There were plans to attack the Taliban before, and the sole reason being that they didn't go along with the oil pipeline.
Arguing about the creations of the CIA is within the framework of acceptable discussion. Arguing that Bin Laden, just a patsy more than likely and possibly even an agent, was trained and funded by the CIA is also within that allowed framework. But it misses the picture. These things aren't unintentional, they aren't accidents of supporting some 'bad' guy for the hope he serves our purpose at that point in time. That's the allowed thought. The unallowed thought is saying that this is all a setup, it's intentional. You want to know who was behind 9/11? You just look at the Pakistani ISI (owned by the USA), you look at the CIA or its parallel structure, you look at high-ranking neocons, and you more than ANYTHING look at those who profit, and not only financially -- the bankers.
Look outside the box, there's a wealth of information available if you want to search. 9/11 was just the latest false-flag attack used as a means of control. It by no means will be the last nor the worst. It's just possibly one of the most believed when there is a wealth of evidence against it. The Taliban may not have been pretty to the westerner, but that may have been by design. The USA loves fundamentalists of any kind -- they are bred to do the CIA's bidding, they are easy straw-men to tear down and attack, and they are often oblivious to the fact they've been used. Why do the work yourself when you can have someone else do it AND be able to legitimately get rid of them at a later time?
I like Canada, I lived there for several years.
... ... and instead contribute to the effort
>Here in Canada, we could see the blatant lies of George Bush
>and stayed out of Iraq
>in Afghanistan, you know, the place 911 was run from remember?
But this comment. You actually know where 9/11 was run from? And you say it was Afghanistan??? Does that even make any SENSE? Try Pakistan, USA, and probably Saudi Arabia (those passports and 'hijacker' identities came from somewhere, eh?). That any Afghanis short of ISI members took part in it is pretty hard to believe; they were just the patsies when the Taliban failed to allow the USA to build their oil pipeline through the country as they had initially promised.
Study up a bit more on what really happened on 9/11 and the motivations and causes of it and maybe you'll start rethinking your comment and more importantly how you came to hold/believe it.
-I dunno, but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.
.. But sometimes they're not.
--I, for one, am not over 50 but certainly associate The Beatles and "Apple" so perhaps you should reconsider making blanket statements.
Holy shit, case closed Jobs! We're back in third grade when we totally blow out of context a blanket statement. I used to make these cool statements (I'm only 16 but I've been listening to since I was barely able to walk, am I cool yet?) when I was 16 and boasting about how I listened to 'gnarly' music. Everyone was impressed.
I'm not over 50, but I certainly don't associate The Beatles and the Apple name together. I'm sure some people under 50 do. I'm sure some people over 50 do. AND, I'm even sure some people over 50 DON'T. There are probably even camps on both sides who do a bit of both. A blanket statement is useful 'cuz it's just an exaggerated statement that almost by necessity isn't true, but serves to illustrate a point. I think in this case the point is that since the Beatles' Apple hasn't released anything new in many years or done anything besides possibly turning out balls-to-the-wall loud remastered versions of some greatest hits crap, their name would be almost unknown except to those people who were around when the Beats started Apple.
Now, this blanket statement is false. Anyone who can read a Caillou or a Spot book can tell you that. But I would perhaps wager $1 to say that the meat of his statement is more or less true, meaning that people of a certain age are more likely to know blah blah blah about Apple (Beat edition). And if it's pretty much totally false, well then the original poster was a dumbass. Maybe he is anyway.
Sure, he could have avoided making a blanket statement. No one would get away with (hopefully) making one in a courtroom, but on Slashdot they fit right in with all the idiocy and somewhat insightful/interesting/troll/funny/etc posts.
Now, some blanket statements are just stupid. Often they involve race, sex, etc.
Age is probably a common one where it's not completely stupid. "Man, only people under 30 listen to that rap stuff."
Social status - "Only geeks care about license X when writing a program."
Occupation - "There isn't a trucker alive who hasn't used a CB."
Social class - "Those damn bankers only care about making and taking money."
Viewing habits - "What, you've never seen Star Wars? EVERYONE has seen Star Wars."
Etc... - "All this abstract algerbra stuff is impossible!"
Is there anything more I should add? I'm expecting an offended response.