Our Revolutionary war was basically fought over taxation without representation and the right to express unpopular ideas. Both of these grievances were against the current government.
While a popular belief, it is wrong. Patriots knew that a fair system of representation would make them a small minority of a parliament. "No taxation without representation" was a rallying call, a war cry, not an actual demand for representation.
I don't think this is an issue having a civil war/revolution over, but if you decide to, please be selective in your targeting. I'd recommend going after the CEOs of some of these corps, their lawyers, and select politicians instead of slaughtering and bombing women and children. Also, the hostage method has met a lot of failure of the years.
Right now, people are happy and comfortable. They're safe in their homes, they're well/over-fed, they have competent medical care, and they're relatively free. Mass rebellion isn't happening any time soon.
Also, please take note of the "immigrant" protests of this year. Millions of mexicans gathered on the streets, took down an American flag, raised the Mexican flag, and then raised an upside-down American flag below it. If you want to piss people off and get them to fight you despite agreeing with you, follow their example. Backlashes ROCK!
Do you want to be the guy holding that info when the People's Republic of California comes knocking? I don't. Too many bleeding heart, anti-corporate liberals in California that think they can legislate the world into submission.
As opposed to the religious zealot Texans who think they can bible-thump everyone into submission? Don't be stupid, and don't play this political game. And don't troll, either. This is about people trying to control others, nothing more, nothing less. And no, I'm not trying to control you by telling you not to do the aforementioned activities. I'm telling you not to, but I'm not legislating it or holding a gun to your head.
The reason most Californians don't like most conservatives is most conservatives try to legislate religion, prohibition, etc. Most conservatives tend to hate Californians/liberals because liberals try to force everyone else to pay for social programs and legislate other bullshit. The problem is that both sides are right - both sides are wrong. The platform of both parties is to make legislation out of personal matters, and of course people are going to be upset at eachother.
What's more important to consider is if the original author has advertising. By copying instead of linking, the copier take hits, aka money, away from the real author.
Full quote because I can;). You just shocked and surprised me. I had completely forgotten about advertising because I haven't seen any in months. Thank root for adblock and a properly configured hosts file. Back on topic, what's actually important to remember is whether or not someone can sue you for it. I remember when a science teacher once telling me of a 10%/300 word rule, but I'm not sure if that's still true or even if it was. The idea was that you could quote 10% of a work, or 300 words, whichever was lesser. Of course that seems like a lot to be quoting, since this post is only 165 words (including the quote).
Does anyone care to share what the law actually says on this in the US? What are the international provisions?
in my company, a linux box got zombied. it was sending ~150,000 mails a day through our corporate mail servers. we had quite a headache locating that machine. how it got zombified is still a mystery - as it was not on the public network. it was running rh8 though, which makes it an easy target.
You mean rooted? Unless your company employs a spammer who's just dying to get caught, it's quite obvious it was accessible from the net somehow. Well, that or some malicious code, but that should be fairly easy to locate on the system with such a volume of traffic being generated, and it shouldn't really be likely on a well-administered network.
That question, "is the internet that fragile?", is probably the biggest reason I've never opted to switch my phone service to VOIP yet. I'd hate to be the one (tiny chance, I know) who needs to make that one 911 call and not be able to do so because the internet is unavailable (which happens occasionally here, which is also too often).
To begin with, I'd say there's more inherent redundancy in the internet than there is in PSTN. That being said, you don't need a phone line subscription to call 911. You can cancel your service, leave a big red phone plugged in, and use it to dial 911 at any time. The same should be true of cell phones, at least in the US. I'd also recommend keeping a WIRED phone plugged into your PSTN line. You're a bit more likely to need to use the phone for emergencies when the power is out due to things like tornados, strong storms, earthquakes, etc.
Carding minors has everything to do with it. If you don't sell the game to minors, the law doesn't apply and it's business as usual. If you sell the game to minors, you're putting yourself at the mercy of the law.
Well, the wording of the summary seems to disagree, so I guess you're both correct, although you're somewhat wrong and more factually correct than the GP at the same time. The house ammended the bill to include "renting" or "leasing" the game to minors. It did not define renting or leasing, so it could probably be argued that it's safe as long as money isn't exchanged.
You can find the actual text of HB 1381 pretty easily thanks to the e-inter-super-information-highway-web. It reads as follows:
91.14. Prohibited sales of video or computer games to minors A. An interactive video or computer game shall not be sold, leased, or rented to a minor if the trier of fact determines all of the following: (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence. (2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors. (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
It goes on to define computer, video game, minor (under 18), and explain that the punishment is a fine of $100-2000 or imprisonment of up to one year, with or without hard labor. The summary is incorrect in talking about "banning" or "pulling from shelves", however the GP did correctly interpret the summary.
Luckily this bill isn't as drastic as the article suggests. It's basicaly as bad as the porn laws and damned near a word-for-word copy. It does not stop a parent from purchasing a violent video game for their child, it simply stops the stores from selling, renting, or leasing violent video games directly to children.
I don't think the government has any business regulating this, and I'd fight it to the teeth if I lived in LA, but it's really not all that extreme. It's basically the same as modern weapons and porn laws. In theory a child can't buy cigarettes or knives in the store either.
Hopefully this little rant clears things up a bit.
Does it really matter how reliable they are, though? As long as they are reliable enough that the chances of two drives failing at the exact same time are insignificant, then RAID should be just fine (excluding cases where offsite data storage would be needed, in which case it's probably still easier to just use rsync to another RAID).
Unless some malicious code takes out the data, or a power spike or PSU issue takes out the whole system, or the RAID controller takes a dump and you can't find a replacement for months because it's so antiquated... Don't get me wrong, it's redundancy and it's better than nothing, but it's not backup. As far as my personal stuff goes, I use RAID 5 with a dedicated hot spare, and I routinely burn DVDs with my most important files. I also ssh into my webserver and put the most important, but not extremely private, stuff in a fairly heavily encrypted file. The hosting company does, of course, do daily tape backups and it's on a pretty good cluster. Solely relying on one system is a bad idea, and it's fairly cheap to build a higher level of redundancy if you're somewhat competent with computers.
The biggest tapes (as best I could find in a quick web search) hold 400GB each.
Let's just say your web search was incomplete. About four years ago I worked for a company that made parts for 1TB tape drives. I know they have at least 8TB tape cartridges developed now. I'm sure the price per byte is more expensive than modern, cheap consumer hard drives, though. Keep in mind you're comparing apples to oranges, and essentially complaining that it's much harder to peel an apple. Companies that need large tape drives for backup need tapes instead of hard drives for a reason.
Why'd you buy it? You can get a 24GB used hard disk for less then $25, so what's the benefit of tape?
Hard drives are not, I said "NOT", a backup solution. They aren't reliable enough, they don't last long enough, and they can be affected by many of the same calamities. RAID arrays should be included in this. I don't care if you have RAID 50, if your data's really important you should back it up. If you're worried about pissing off a customer when you lose their data you should probably backup daily.
All of that being said, do you know how old most 20-40GB hard drives are? Granted I still have a functional 4.3GB Quantum Bigfoot, but most hard drives that size are near failure. I wouldn't sell them with anything more than a 30 day limited warranty.
t's a good thing to get some basic protections against ignorant use of this before we end up with another form of pollution (BT corn? Resistant bacteria? Resistant wind-pollinated weeds?)
A recent test showed that one type of nano particle killed fish when some was put in the water (and yes I realize you can kill them with enough salt or dirt or any particle), the question remains, What toxins do we have to tolerate from businesses trying to make a buck before laying down some basic responsibilities? How much do we have to let irresponsible people destroy the environment, making a potentially irreversable buildup? Instead, how about companies have to prove their product can't result in a form of pollution, and will clean it up if it gets out, and the board/owners will be held criminally responsible.
I think you're thinking of the EPA and turning this into an environmental issue. It's not. If a certain nanotechnology is likely to contaminate water or air, or destroy fields, or whatever else, the EPA already has jurisdiction to regulate it. Nobody is questioning that.
This article is quite likely about some reactionist asshole who read some news article about "nanotechnology mini-robots being injected into the blood and fixing a heart!" and went "omigosh the food and drug administration had better regulate that before my doctor injects me with nontech robots and turns me into a pigeon!"
Oh, and we already have resistant bacteria. That's what you get when you tell bacteria/viruses/fungi "evolve or go extinct". I haven't kept up on it, but I'd imagine we have super-resistant bacteria by now as well.
If the two species don't interbreed very often at all (due to members of one species finding members of the other species unattractive, for instance), then they can still be considered seperate species, even if every child is fertile.
So you're telling me Cameron Diaz and I really are seperate species?! I knew there was a reason she kept refusing to sleep with me...
The only enemy the US will dare fight is one which lives in 3rd-world conditions, so there won't be any danger of them having the technology.
I know you're just a troll and an idiot, but I just have to respond.
You can buy direction finding equipment at your local radio shack. If a country has the means to procure food and weapons, it can certainly procure radio and simple direction finding equipment. It can also manufacture its own with relative ease. This isn't exactly high-tech stuff we're talking about.
On top of that, you've got it all wrong. The only enemy that will dare force the US to attack it is one which is self-destructive enough to still live in third world conditions.
Poor people are willing to fight but they have no desire to die.
True. There are poor people in the military, they are willing to fight, and they don't actively desire to die. Most try to avoid it. But they are willing to die. They tend to be fairly brave in combat, though, especially when their buddies' asses are on the line.
You're playing an underhanded game with the words here. The GP said "people here actually are willing to fight and die.", but you're acting as if your reasonable statement of "they have no desire to die" proves him wrong. I'd say that they are "willing to fight and die, but have no desire to do either unless they have to", with some exceptions of course. Every society has sociopaths, idiots, idealists, and suicidal people, and many of them think they'd do well in the military.
They are in the military for the money and mostly due to shady recruitment tactics.
Partial truth at best. Some are, sure, and I'm sure a higher percentage of the poor military members are in it for the money than the rich, but most of the ones I know are patriotic, enjoy the job, enjoy the lifestyle, or thought it'd be the best way to improve their lives. Certainly some recruiters do lie, but I don't think it makes a huge differences in the actual numbers. I also know some people who have joined because it was "jail for 4 years or army for 3". Many of them have actually turned into great soldiers because they're the kind of people needed by special ops, so long as they behave themselves a little bit.
It's strange that other countries are as free as we are but don't need to take all these precautionary measures.
Agreed. Many countries have more freedom than America. If you think you're free in america, try having gay sex in the south and then bragging about it. Try growing a couple of marijuana plants to comfort your son who is dying of cancer. Our freedoms are limited by the religious fundamentalists and misguided do-gooders of our society. Unfortunately, we don't have the freedom to hang them for "interfering with our freedoms via crappy legistlation", although I'm sure we could change things if everybody who agreed the laws were crap voted to change them.
I don't think islamic fundamentalism currently challenges the freedoms of Americans living in America. Certainly they have kidnapped, slaughtered, murdered, raped, and tortured Americans throughout the world. Certainly their ideology is a threat to freedom as we know it, as are the fundamentalist christians.
That being said, a complete military stand down would eventually result in America getting its ass kicked by another country, likely a country with a more restrictive system of government. It's safe to say the current global stability is not going to be permanent, and we'll need an experienced, well-trained, and well-equipped military to keep the country safe at some point in the future. So don't bash the military because you're unhappy with our current political situation. If you want more freedoms, donate money to te ACLU and get to the voting booth. If that doesn't do it, pick up a rifle and shoot your worst legislator. If you're mad about the war in the middle east, well, you can't really undo it, but you can show it on the ballots. If you just don't care, and all you want to do is bitch and blame other people, move to the netherlands or canada or something. You'll have more freedom (and taxes), and you'll probably be liberated by the american military during the next major war anyways...
That would be sacreligious, obscene, and heresy. If God had intended for us to study medicine, He wouldn't have provided us with spiritual healers. If God had intended for us to see each other naked, He would've made us unable to make clothing.
QED
The only nudity that's good is that of Jesus, covered with a loin cloth, on the cross. Anything else demands a good ole stake burning.
I was actually hoping for the.xxx domain proposal to pass, though. I wouldn't want it a mandatory requirement, but certainly it'd be a lot easier if a lot of sites switched. I could just type gooblygock.xxx and get my porn without having to worry about getting some stupid corporate website about the nifty widgets they make. On top of that, I could add *.xxx to my adblock filters and surf warez sites easier.
To be honest, I really wish the TLDs were enforced. I disagree entirely with censoring, but I don't want to go to PETA.com and get the PETA non-profit site, go to PETA.org and get the PETA parody site etc. If I know something's a company based in the US I should be able to find it at.com or.us. If I know it's based in transylvania or whatever,.TV would be a likely guess. Granted, google has made it a lot easier to find companies without guessing URLs, but I still tend to do it often enough.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it will be here forever. I'm just trying to say that it won't go completely dead any time in the near future even if the US is nearly wiped out.
Of course it could happen, but I would bet my money on english surviving for quite a while.
Britain now consumes more food than it produces - it fell into a food deficit a few weeks back. Not sure about other countries, but I suspect that many do likewise.
You suspect wrong.
(The picture is complicated by Africa having extremely high death rates from disease and war, as well as from starvation, but the evidence seems to be that a significant portion of the world CANNOT feed itself.)
Right, starvation is a weapon in war. There is not a shortage of food being produced. The planet produces excess food, and it's getting cheaper by the day in developed nations. The issue is that some people stockpile it, others steal it, and some people do both in an effort to gain control and power over other people.
When obesity is the primary health concern of the impoverished in America, I think you need to consider the idea that maybe it's people killing people instead of mother earth killing people because she can't support us.
This is a WAG, but I'm going to say that the world could probably double its food output by simply educating 2nd and 3rd world countries in modern agriculture sciences and giving them some of the basic technology and equipment used to achieve the results.
Oh come on, that's ridiculous. Rome ruled much of the civilized world for years, and 2000 years later, the language is dead.
If by "civilized world" you mean the small portion of it we like to call PART of europe, northern africa (along the coast, not all that far inland), and a small piece of the middle east, then sure, they ruled the whole world! We're talking a landmass about 2/3 the size of the United States, with 1/5-1/2 the population (estimates vary).
They collapsed for various reasons, and were surrounded by people who spoke different languages. It's not like the navajo, chinese, inca, and japanese spoke latin natively. We do have that situation now, though, where children throughout the world are learning english as their first language or simultaneously with their native language.
So, let's compare... A billion english speakers scattered throughout the globe in every country with a few more in orbit compared to 50-120 million romans (of which many probably spoke survival-level latin, if any) concentrated within 500 miles of the coasts of the mediterranean and black seas, with the exception of britain (south of Hadrian's wall).
The Romans could've been eliminated by a single meteorite and the majority of the planets' occupants wouldn't have noticed.
At this point in time, english will likely live on forever, but it may undergo some radical changes and/or localization in the event of catastrophe.
All of that being said, a language being "dead" doesn't mean nobody knows it anymore. A language being "dead" simply means that people no longer learn it as their native language, and it's stopped evolving. Many "dead" language are still in use and well-known because of their religious, literary, or legal functions.
24,000 years is overkill. In about 1,000 years HLRW is about as dangerous as the original uranium ore from which it came.
Would it be possible to refine the waste in a couple of thousand years?:). I figure I could start a company now, buy it all and store it, then sell a shitload of uranium to the iranians or jihadis or whoever else needs it in only a few lifetimes (assuming good cloning tech to harvest some new organs as I need them...)
But quite seriously, does this stuff ever get useful again? Is there any way we could use the heat generated to power turbines, or could we eventually re-refine the uranium? Obviously a lot would be lost, but I'm all about recycle/re-use and whatever that third one is...
but if civilization still exists, they will still be studying the Bible...
I sure hope not...
I expect they'll be laughing at us for believing in one all-powerful all-perfect god. Maybe they'll believe in the Ancients from Stargate SG-1, maybe they'll believe in nature, maybe they'll have evolved beyond the need for religion, but I sure hope and expect we'll get over christianity by then...
The link between vaccines and autism had to do with a preservative that included mercury in it. This has been replaced with a non-mercury preservative, and I believe most of those batches have since been used or replaced.
They didn't just replace them. They sold them to the military at half the price:'(
Nah, I'm not confusing them. I've never seen the actual numbers of how many of each were produced, but there seem to be far more AK-47s in the world, although 74s appear to be more popular in movies. The -74 is a nice weapon, and I'd usually choose it over a -47, but I wouldn't like having a ton of -47s pointed at me from 50m. It's no sniper rifle, but it isn't intended to be.
Anyways, I guess I'm just arguing him calling the AK-47 "mostly defunct". Old, certainly, but it still gets the job done, and it's still widely used...
Slashdot Mirror
While a popular belief, it is wrong. Patriots knew that a fair system of representation would make them a small minority of a parliament. "No taxation without representation" was a rallying call, a war cry, not an actual demand for representation.
I don't think this is an issue having a civil war/revolution over, but if you decide to, please be selective in your targeting. I'd recommend going after the CEOs of some of these corps, their lawyers, and select politicians instead of slaughtering and bombing women and children. Also, the hostage method has met a lot of failure of the years.
Right now, people are happy and comfortable. They're safe in their homes, they're well/over-fed, they have competent medical care, and they're relatively free. Mass rebellion isn't happening any time soon.
Also, please take note of the "immigrant" protests of this year. Millions of mexicans gathered on the streets, took down an American flag, raised the Mexican flag, and then raised an upside-down American flag below it. If you want to piss people off and get them to fight you despite agreeing with you, follow their example. Backlashes ROCK!
Damn, and here I thought it was politics that was getting old...
As opposed to the religious zealot Texans who think they can bible-thump everyone into submission? Don't be stupid, and don't play this political game. And don't troll, either. This is about people trying to control others, nothing more, nothing less. And no, I'm not trying to control you by telling you not to do the aforementioned activities. I'm telling you not to, but I'm not legislating it or holding a gun to your head.
The reason most Californians don't like most conservatives is most conservatives try to legislate religion, prohibition, etc. Most conservatives tend to hate Californians/liberals because liberals try to force everyone else to pay for social programs and legislate other bullshit. The problem is that both sides are right - both sides are wrong. The platform of both parties is to make legislation out of personal matters, and of course people are going to be upset at eachother.
Full quote because I can
Does anyone care to share what the law actually says on this in the US? What are the international provisions?
Your mother doesn't count.
You mean rooted? Unless your company employs a spammer who's just dying to get caught, it's quite obvious it was accessible from the net somehow. Well, that or some malicious code, but that should be fairly easy to locate on the system with such a volume of traffic being generated, and it shouldn't really be likely on a well-administered network.
To begin with, I'd say there's more inherent redundancy in the internet than there is in PSTN. That being said, you don't need a phone line subscription to call 911. You can cancel your service, leave a big red phone plugged in, and use it to dial 911 at any time. The same should be true of cell phones, at least in the US. I'd also recommend keeping a WIRED phone plugged into your PSTN line. You're a bit more likely to need to use the phone for emergencies when the power is out due to things like tornados, strong storms, earthquakes, etc.
Well, the wording of the summary seems to disagree, so I guess you're both correct, although you're somewhat wrong and more factually correct than the GP at the same time. The house ammended the bill to include "renting" or "leasing" the game to minors. It did not define renting or leasing, so it could probably be argued that it's safe as long as money isn't exchanged.
You can find the actual text of HB 1381 pretty easily thanks to the e-inter-super-information-highway-web. It reads as follows:
It goes on to define computer, video game, minor (under 18), and explain that the punishment is a fine of $100-2000 or imprisonment of up to one year, with or without hard labor. The summary is incorrect in talking about "banning" or "pulling from shelves", however the GP did correctly interpret the summary.
Luckily this bill isn't as drastic as the article suggests. It's basicaly as bad as the porn laws and damned near a word-for-word copy. It does not stop a parent from purchasing a violent video game for their child, it simply stops the stores from selling, renting, or leasing violent video games directly to children.
I don't think the government has any business regulating this, and I'd fight it to the teeth if I lived in LA, but it's really not all that extreme. It's basically the same as modern weapons and porn laws. In theory a child can't buy cigarettes or knives in the store either.
Hopefully this little rant clears things up a bit.
Unless some malicious code takes out the data, or a power spike or PSU issue takes out the whole system, or the RAID controller takes a dump and you can't find a replacement for months because it's so antiquated... Don't get me wrong, it's redundancy and it's better than nothing, but it's not backup. As far as my personal stuff goes, I use RAID 5 with a dedicated hot spare, and I routinely burn DVDs with my most important files. I also ssh into my webserver and put the most important, but not extremely private, stuff in a fairly heavily encrypted file. The hosting company does, of course, do daily tape backups and it's on a pretty good cluster. Solely relying on one system is a bad idea, and it's fairly cheap to build a higher level of redundancy if you're somewhat competent with computers.
Let's just say your web search was incomplete. About four years ago I worked for a company that made parts for 1TB tape drives. I know they have at least 8TB tape cartridges developed now. I'm sure the price per byte is more expensive than modern, cheap consumer hard drives, though. Keep in mind you're comparing apples to oranges, and essentially complaining that it's much harder to peel an apple. Companies that need large tape drives for backup need tapes instead of hard drives for a reason.
Hard drives are not, I said "NOT", a backup solution. They aren't reliable enough, they don't last long enough, and they can be affected by many of the same calamities. RAID arrays should be included in this. I don't care if you have RAID 50, if your data's really important you should back it up. If you're worried about pissing off a customer when you lose their data you should probably backup daily.
All of that being said, do you know how old most 20-40GB hard drives are? Granted I still have a functional 4.3GB Quantum Bigfoot, but most hard drives that size are near failure. I wouldn't sell them with anything more than a 30 day limited warranty.
I think you're thinking of the EPA and turning this into an environmental issue. It's not. If a certain nanotechnology is likely to contaminate water or air, or destroy fields, or whatever else, the EPA already has jurisdiction to regulate it. Nobody is questioning that.
This article is quite likely about some reactionist asshole who read some news article about "nanotechnology mini-robots being injected into the blood and fixing a heart!" and went "omigosh the food and drug administration had better regulate that before my doctor injects me with nontech robots and turns me into a pigeon!"
Oh, and we already have resistant bacteria. That's what you get when you tell bacteria/viruses/fungi "evolve or go extinct". I haven't kept up on it, but I'd imagine we have super-resistant bacteria by now as well.
In Japan, 5 feet is more than enough to keep the average person from being able to see over the wall
Sorry, low blow, I know...
So you're telling me Cameron Diaz and I really are seperate species?! I knew there was a reason she kept refusing to sleep with me...
I know you're just a troll and an idiot, but I just have to respond.
You can buy direction finding equipment at your local radio shack. If a country has the means to procure food and weapons, it can certainly procure radio and simple direction finding equipment. It can also manufacture its own with relative ease. This isn't exactly high-tech stuff we're talking about.
On top of that, you've got it all wrong. The only enemy that will dare force the US to attack it is one which is self-destructive enough to still live in third world conditions.
True. There are poor people in the military, they are willing to fight, and they don't actively desire to die. Most try to avoid it. But they are willing to die. They tend to be fairly brave in combat, though, especially when their buddies' asses are on the line.
You're playing an underhanded game with the words here. The GP said "people here actually are willing to fight and die.", but you're acting as if your reasonable statement of "they have no desire to die" proves him wrong. I'd say that they are "willing to fight and die, but have no desire to do either unless they have to", with some exceptions of course. Every society has sociopaths, idiots, idealists, and suicidal people, and many of them think they'd do well in the military.
Partial truth at best. Some are, sure, and I'm sure a higher percentage of the poor military members are in it for the money than the rich, but most of the ones I know are patriotic, enjoy the job, enjoy the lifestyle, or thought it'd be the best way to improve their lives. Certainly some recruiters do lie, but I don't think it makes a huge differences in the actual numbers. I also know some people who have joined because it was "jail for 4 years or army for 3". Many of them have actually turned into great soldiers because they're the kind of people needed by special ops, so long as they behave themselves a little bit.
Agreed. Many countries have more freedom than America. If you think you're free in america, try having gay sex in the south and then bragging about it. Try growing a couple of marijuana plants to comfort your son who is dying of cancer. Our freedoms are limited by the religious fundamentalists and misguided do-gooders of our society. Unfortunately, we don't have the freedom to hang them for "interfering with our freedoms via crappy legistlation", although I'm sure we could change things if everybody who agreed the laws were crap voted to change them.
I don't think islamic fundamentalism currently challenges the freedoms of Americans living in America. Certainly they have kidnapped, slaughtered, murdered, raped, and tortured Americans throughout the world. Certainly their ideology is a threat to freedom as we know it, as are the fundamentalist christians.
That being said, a complete military stand down would eventually result in America getting its ass kicked by another country, likely a country with a more restrictive system of government. It's safe to say the current global stability is not going to be permanent, and we'll need an experienced, well-trained, and well-equipped military to keep the country safe at some point in the future. So don't bash the military because you're unhappy with our current political situation. If you want more freedoms, donate money to te ACLU and get to the voting booth. If that doesn't do it, pick up a rifle and shoot your worst legislator. If you're mad about the war in the middle east, well, you can't really undo it, but you can show it on the ballots. If you just don't care, and all you want to do is bitch and blame other people, move to the netherlands or canada or something. You'll have more freedom (and taxes), and you'll probably be liberated by the american military during the next major war anyways...
That would be sacreligious, obscene, and heresy. If God had intended for us to study medicine, He wouldn't have provided us with spiritual healers. If God had intended for us to see each other naked, He would've made us unable to make clothing.
QED
The only nudity that's good is that of Jesus, covered with a loin cloth, on the cross. Anything else demands a good ole stake burning.
I was actually hoping for the
To be honest, I really wish the TLDs were enforced. I disagree entirely with censoring, but I don't want to go to PETA.com and get the PETA non-profit site, go to PETA.org and get the PETA parody site etc. If I know something's a company based in the US I should be able to find it at
Sorry, I didn't mean to say it will be here forever. I'm just trying to say that it won't go completely dead any time in the near future even if the US is nearly wiped out.
Of course it could happen, but I would bet my money on english surviving for quite a while.
You suspect wrong.
Right, starvation is a weapon in war. There is not a shortage of food being produced. The planet produces excess food, and it's getting cheaper by the day in developed nations. The issue is that some people stockpile it, others steal it, and some people do both in an effort to gain control and power over other people.
When obesity is the primary health concern of the impoverished in America, I think you need to consider the idea that maybe it's people killing people instead of mother earth killing people because she can't support us.
This is a WAG, but I'm going to say that the world could probably double its food output by simply educating 2nd and 3rd world countries in modern agriculture sciences and giving them some of the basic technology and equipment used to achieve the results.
If by "civilized world" you mean the small portion of it we like to call PART of europe, northern africa (along the coast, not all that far inland), and a small piece of the middle east, then sure, they ruled the whole world! We're talking a landmass about 2/3 the size of the United States, with 1/5-1/2 the population (estimates vary).
They collapsed for various reasons, and were surrounded by people who spoke different languages. It's not like the navajo, chinese, inca, and japanese spoke latin natively. We do have that situation now, though, where children throughout the world are learning english as their first language or simultaneously with their native language.
So, let's compare... A billion english speakers scattered throughout the globe in every country with a few more in orbit compared to 50-120 million romans (of which many probably spoke survival-level latin, if any) concentrated within 500 miles of the coasts of the mediterranean and black seas, with the exception of britain (south of Hadrian's wall).
The Romans could've been eliminated by a single meteorite and the majority of the planets' occupants wouldn't have noticed.
At this point in time, english will likely live on forever, but it may undergo some radical changes and/or localization in the event of catastrophe.
All of that being said, a language being "dead" doesn't mean nobody knows it anymore. A language being "dead" simply means that people no longer learn it as their native language, and it's stopped evolving. Many "dead" language are still in use and well-known because of their religious, literary, or legal functions.
Would it be possible to refine the waste in a couple of thousand years?
But quite seriously, does this stuff ever get useful again? Is there any way we could use the heat generated to power turbines, or could we eventually re-refine the uranium? Obviously a lot would be lost, but I'm all about recycle/re-use and whatever that third one is...
I sure hope not...
I expect they'll be laughing at us for believing in one all-powerful all-perfect god. Maybe they'll believe in the Ancients from Stargate SG-1, maybe they'll believe in nature, maybe they'll have evolved beyond the need for religion, but I sure hope and expect we'll get over christianity by then...
Sorry, but your information is outdated. The official term is now "lean forward". Please update your sigs, stationery, and blogs.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
UID #157373
Spokesman, Ministry of Truth
They didn't just replace them. They sold them to the military at half the price
Nah, I'm not confusing them. I've never seen the actual numbers of how many of each were produced, but there seem to be far more AK-47s in the world, although 74s appear to be more popular in movies. The -74 is a nice weapon, and I'd usually choose it over a -47, but I wouldn't like having a ton of -47s pointed at me from 50m. It's no sniper rifle, but it isn't intended to be.
Anyways, I guess I'm just arguing him calling the AK-47 "mostly defunct". Old, certainly, but it still gets the job done, and it's still widely used...