The Italian Police are "the worst torturers on Earth"? Legally? Oh I'd say it didn't need a legal defence, given that the complaints are about legally sanctioned activities. As for ethically, I don't see the Japanese up in arms when a child murderer is slapped around by the police for a few days until he confesses.
I wouldn't want this for the US legal system for obvious reasons, but given the extingencies of war, allowing the US military access to industrialized nations' police force interrogation techniques seems reasonable.
And come on, if it were Clinton in Iraq now, and Clinton had listened to his generals, kept a tight reign on contractors, and not fucked up the occupation, would anyone really be complaining that the military was water boarding a half dozen assholes, and making some lesser assholes stand awkwardly for hours? Either one of those still sounds like a huge improvement over an Italian police "talk".
I'm sure that works extremely well, but it just seems "un-American".
Separating the kids into smart schools (the future rich kids) and stupid schools (the future poor kids) would promote social classes and segregate children. And what would happen if minorities mostly went to the stupid school?
Never mind the blow to liberty and the pursuit of happiness being denied the stupid children.
So one conservative over a million liberals makes it exclusively conservative? The Teachers' Unions, the current Congress, the Dept of Education all like to bitch that they need more money to execute NCLB, but no one is getting rid of it, are they?
Keep in mind, NCLB is an absolute piece of crap that was doomed from the start. I think its only point was to show that the US public education system is so broken by a Teachers' Union who won't allow any progressive change, that only fools would send their kids to public schools. Luckily for the public schools, they create a ready supply of fools.
"This government"? You mean the Democratic Congress with a near super majority? Yeah after the subprime six fiasco being a huge contributor to the downturn in the economy, I wouldn't trust those Dems either.
Sounds like a pretty cut and dried case of slander in the US. If you lie about someone, and it hurts them economically, they can sue. Of course, most employment in the US is at will and the boss can say he fired you because he didn't like you, which then means no law suit and no slander.
You are saying that a human genocide and cultural genocide, where to this day large portions of the population are in gulags, most of the country is now culturally Chinese so that a few more decades there won't be any Tibetian culture left, and a nun can get 25 years in prison for saying a prayer in public, is better than what the US has done in Iraq.
Hopefully you are just clueless about what has happened in Tibet over the last 50 years.
(Don't forget the classic Chinese law in Tibet where permission must be granted by the government in order to reincarnate, fscking brilliant.)
Take any category of murder in the US, knives, blunt instruments, or fists, and it is higher than all the categories of murder combined in the UK, per capita.
So you're saying that if the US enacted some real, and I mean manly gun control (unlike that pussy gun control in places like DC, Philly, NYC, etc), we'd have less mayhem?
Or a alternative hypothesis. The US is just a really violent place. Taking away their guns would, perhaps, marginally reduce the murder rate.
This would also fly directly in the face of the political philosophers who's ideas this country was based upon, in that and armed populace is necessary to keep at bay tyrannical governments. For an example of tyrannical governments, the origin of gun control in the US was a creation of Southern States trying to disarm newly freed African Americas, after the Civil War, to make them easier pickings for the racist mobs. With such an innoble history, gun control is a filthy business.
Socialism and Capitalism are both forms of economies. Communism and Fascism are forms of government.
On a side note, you might ask yourself why Communism has never been successfully attempted (built in flaws?). Yet Democracy has succeeded over and over. And why Socialism has mildly succeeded in unique situations, Capitalism seems to work wherever it is tried.
Keep in mind, Adam Smith, the father of modern Capitalism, warned of the problems we see today with corporations subverting the political process in order to gain legally created monopolies and unfair protections.
But if corporations influencing politicians is the worst defect of Capitalism and Democracy, I'll take it any day over Communism. Since its worst defect appears to be slaughtering millions of its own citizens, millions more in gulags, no rule of law, equal poverty (except for the party elites), and being little more than an indentured servant to the local party leader who's boot heels you must lick.
Me I can't remember the last time my mayor knocked on my door begging me to vote for him, but only after I had properly licked his boots.
What about the Senate Intelligence Committee? Didn't they get to see basically the same intelligence reports on Iraq? If Bush is to be impeached, shouldn't Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and many many others who voted for the war, also be put on trial?
People defend themselves with firearms all the time in the US. Many states have laws that allow home owners to shoot intruders if there is *any* fear for their or a family members safety. The US Supreme Court is currently seeing a case that goes to the heart of the 2nd Amendment (The Right to Bear Arms). Their arguments so far seem to indicate they take seriously that the primary reason for citizens to own firearms is to protect against a tyrannical government. I think it ludicrous that any industrialized nation would need to physically overthrow their government, but I'd hate to needlessly give up rights today that my great great grandchildren might need.
Either way, keep in mind the US is an extremely violent place compared to other industrialized nations. The US has more murders with any other weapon (knives, blunt instruments, fists, etc), than the UK has total.
Washington DC is a good example of why this "first crime" isn't really much of a barrier. Guns are completely illegal there, yet gun murders/crimes abound at a much higher rate than the rest of the country. Even the UK, with much stricter gun laws recently passed, is having an increase in gun crime incidents.
Wouldn't other countries pick up the slack if China lost most favored nation status and had to compete more fairly with other industrializing nations? Maybe even some of those jobs would move back to the US. China's advantage is lots of low cost manpower, and an extremely high tolerance for environmental damage. Many other countries have the same advantages.
And US corporations may really want to get in on the ground floor of the newly growing markets in China, but currently the Chinese market doesn't matter for crap to the US economy.
China is paying for a genocide in Sudan and committing one in Tibet. The US policy of promoting commerce in China in order to cool off Communist mass murder has utterly failed.
If you are going to reference that particular theorem, then the correct conclusion would be surprise that someone actually got the predictions correct. IE, these predictions are not random chance, but the result of true insight.
The theorem concludes that we would only expect one monkey to actually write Hamlet for time values well over the age of the Universe.
Where does the New Testament incite violence?
And you speak of the Crusades as if a bunch of Christians woke up one morning and decided to embark on a stupid bloody war. Instead, after 300 years of Muslims enslaving and exterminating Christians, the Christians woke up one day and decided to embark on a series of stupid bloody wars.
They may have been Christians, but they didn't murder thousands of people in the name of Christianity. They did it for the normal reasons Europeans commit genocide, racism. Christians may still be killing people as usual, but they aren't doing it in the name of Christianity. Which is the point being made.
Hah, calling Benjamin Franklin an idiot, classic. And you missed the analogy; the "guns" representing enshrined rights which can not be voted away. To be even more simplistic, in the USA, the "guns" would be the Bill of Rights plus the rest of the Constitutional Amendments.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia says otherwise. While seti@home is impressive, it doesn't come close to folding@home which is at around 2.2 Petaflops.
folding@home beats this with just the GPU cards.
I wouldn't want this for the US legal system for obvious reasons, but given the extingencies of war, allowing the US military access to industrialized nations' police force interrogation techniques seems reasonable.
And come on, if it were Clinton in Iraq now, and Clinton had listened to his generals, kept a tight reign on contractors, and not fucked up the occupation, would anyone really be complaining that the military was water boarding a half dozen assholes, and making some lesser assholes stand awkwardly for hours? Either one of those still sounds like a huge improvement over an Italian police "talk".
Separating the kids into smart schools (the future rich kids) and stupid schools (the future poor kids) would promote social classes and segregate children. And what would happen if minorities mostly went to the stupid school?
Never mind the blow to liberty and the pursuit of happiness being denied the stupid children.
Keep in mind, NCLB is an absolute piece of crap that was doomed from the start. I think its only point was to show that the US public education system is so broken by a Teachers' Union who won't allow any progressive change, that only fools would send their kids to public schools. Luckily for the public schools, they create a ready supply of fools.
"This government"? You mean the Democratic Congress with a near super majority? Yeah after the subprime six fiasco being a huge contributor to the downturn in the economy, I wouldn't trust those Dems either.
What do US military interrogators do that is worse than half the some EU/Japanese/Chinese/lots of industrialized police interrogators?
I'm curious as to why? A New Zealander believing in the Iraqi and Afghanistani causes?
Sounds like a pretty cut and dried case of slander in the US. If you lie about someone, and it hurts them economically, they can sue. Of course, most employment in the US is at will and the boss can say he fired you because he didn't like you, which then means no law suit and no slander.
It took until the beginning of the 20th century for the US courts to see things different. Hopefully Australia won't be too much further behind.
Hopefully you are just clueless about what has happened in Tibet over the last 50 years.
(Don't forget the classic Chinese law in Tibet where permission must be granted by the government in order to reincarnate, fscking brilliant.)
So you're saying that if the US enacted some real, and I mean manly gun control (unlike that pussy gun control in places like DC, Philly, NYC, etc), we'd have less mayhem?
Or a alternative hypothesis. The US is just a really violent place. Taking away their guns would, perhaps, marginally reduce the murder rate.
This would also fly directly in the face of the political philosophers who's ideas this country was based upon, in that and armed populace is necessary to keep at bay tyrannical governments. For an example of tyrannical governments, the origin of gun control in the US was a creation of Southern States trying to disarm newly freed African Americas, after the Civil War, to make them easier pickings for the racist mobs. With such an innoble history, gun control is a filthy business.
Socialism and Capitalism are both forms of economies. Communism and Fascism are forms of government.
On a side note, you might ask yourself why Communism has never been successfully attempted (built in flaws?). Yet Democracy has succeeded over and over. And why Socialism has mildly succeeded in unique situations, Capitalism seems to work wherever it is tried.
Keep in mind, Adam Smith, the father of modern Capitalism, warned of the problems we see today with corporations subverting the political process in order to gain legally created monopolies and unfair protections.
But if corporations influencing politicians is the worst defect of Capitalism and Democracy, I'll take it any day over Communism. Since its worst defect appears to be slaughtering millions of its own citizens, millions more in gulags, no rule of law, equal poverty (except for the party elites), and being little more than an indentured servant to the local party leader who's boot heels you must lick.
Me I can't remember the last time my mayor knocked on my door begging me to vote for him, but only after I had properly licked his boots.
What about the Senate Intelligence Committee? Didn't they get to see basically the same intelligence reports on Iraq? If Bush is to be impeached, shouldn't Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and many many others who voted for the war, also be put on trial?
If I had any mod points, I'd give them all to you. Hilarious.
People defend themselves with firearms all the time in the US. Many states have laws that allow home owners to shoot intruders if there is *any* fear for their or a family members safety. The US Supreme Court is currently seeing a case that goes to the heart of the 2nd Amendment (The Right to Bear Arms). Their arguments so far seem to indicate they take seriously that the primary reason for citizens to own firearms is to protect against a tyrannical government. I think it ludicrous that any industrialized nation would need to physically overthrow their government, but I'd hate to needlessly give up rights today that my great great grandchildren might need.
Either way, keep in mind the US is an extremely violent place compared to other industrialized nations. The US has more murders with any other weapon (knives, blunt instruments, fists, etc), than the UK has total.
Washington DC is a good example of why this "first crime" isn't really much of a barrier. Guns are completely illegal there, yet gun murders/crimes abound at a much higher rate than the rest of the country. Even the UK, with much stricter gun laws recently passed, is having an increase in gun crime incidents.
Wouldn't other countries pick up the slack if China lost most favored nation status and had to compete more fairly with other industrializing nations? Maybe even some of those jobs would move back to the US. China's advantage is lots of low cost manpower, and an extremely high tolerance for environmental damage. Many other countries have the same advantages. And US corporations may really want to get in on the ground floor of the newly growing markets in China, but currently the Chinese market doesn't matter for crap to the US economy. China is paying for a genocide in Sudan and committing one in Tibet. The US policy of promoting commerce in China in order to cool off Communist mass murder has utterly failed.
What is being censored and who is censoring it?
Gun control only keeps guns out of the "right hands". "Wrong hands" will find access to guns, regardless of the law.
If you are going to reference that particular theorem, then the correct conclusion would be surprise that someone actually got the predictions correct. IE, these predictions are not random chance, but the result of true insight. The theorem concludes that we would only expect one monkey to actually write Hamlet for time values well over the age of the Universe.
Where does the New Testament incite violence? And you speak of the Crusades as if a bunch of Christians woke up one morning and decided to embark on a stupid bloody war. Instead, after 300 years of Muslims enslaving and exterminating Christians, the Christians woke up one day and decided to embark on a series of stupid bloody wars.
They may have been Christians, but they didn't murder thousands of people in the name of Christianity. They did it for the normal reasons Europeans commit genocide, racism. Christians may still be killing people as usual, but they aren't doing it in the name of Christianity. Which is the point being made.
Hah, calling Benjamin Franklin an idiot, classic. And you missed the analogy; the "guns" representing enshrined rights which can not be voted away. To be even more simplistic, in the USA, the "guns" would be the Bill of Rights plus the rest of the Constitutional Amendments.
The NSF site says that of the $35 billion spent by companies on research, $41 million is federal money.