Unfortunately For Saddam, his March Co-operation doesnt mean he wasnt in Material breach of 1441.
By March, his lack of co-operation was sufficient to allow military action against him. Could we have waited, and seen if that co-operation would continue? Sure. Does that mean that invading was illeagle? No.
The UN said to Saddam, essentially: co-operate immidiately. Spcifically, announce your plans to co-operate within 10 days, lets see some reports on what you have where in 30 days, and we want to hear nice things from any Inspectors the UN deems acceptable within 45 days. OR ELSE!
That was in Nov. 2002. So the fact that in March 2003 he was actively co-operating (and the US had a bunch of troops on the ground) DOESNT bring him into compliance with 1441. Look he complied briefly in 98, also. He did that from time to time. But by not complying in Nov-Dec 2002, he violated security council resolutions, which, by charter, are binding on member States. I.E. member states are OBLIGATED to carry them out. I.E. the legal argument can be made that the US (as well as other signatories) are BOUND to fulfill the OR ELSE part.
Certainly being bound to fulfill the OR ELSE parts is sufficient LEGAL grounds to go to war. Does this respond to "was it a good Idea?" Or "was it the right thing to do?" Maybe not. But was it legal to GO to war? to the extent that International law is all sorts of Vague on these things, it was as legal as any other military action.
If you want to argue "but the war was pursued in Illeagle ways too many civilian Deaths, Abu Grhaib blah blah blah" You would have a better case. Less with the civilian Deaths, More with Abu Ghraib. But, even there, claiming it is illeagle under Geneva. Is hard to do.
Well, India and pakistan are still at the 12 - 20 critical Masses stage.
N. Korea, 2-5 critical Masses.
So, unless you are talking about Russia, or the Ukraine, France, England, or Israel, (Your Post excludes russian, and I hope we arent scared of France Or GB or Israel Yet), you are talking about a single, or a couple of warheads in a missle. So, you still arent eliminating a whole city.
Dude, That is a fusion Bomb. I was asking about pure Fusion bombs, and fusion bombs with a tritium booster (the tritium fissions, but really is there cause it provides a bunch more neutrons increasing efficiancy-->increasing yiled. Same thing happens in a fusion bomb, except there is also the fusion releasing energy, and you have no issue of critical mass, you can just dump as much fusionable fuel as you want), in general:
A. You have at least 2 U235 cores the trigger core, and the core that detonates the fusion material.
B. The Fusion releases a whole lot of high energy Neutrons, which also serve to Fission the u238 (not applicable in the test bomb) but, which also make the 235 much more efficient. This is why, with enough Tritium, you can get more and of the 235 to go boom. And with a true fusion bomb, really well tweaked, you can get some serious effeiciancy out of the fusion. However, without fission as a major component, and with only tritium to boost the single 235 core, I was under the impression that you maxed out at about 120kT, with a single Critical Mass. I could be wrong, but your article, which talks about a fusion bomb, which are just, well. A LOT more efficient. Doesnt really adress the issue. I mean, you just get a LOT more neutrons around before the core can expand.
"though they're the old, heavy kind that are 2MT or more yield".
Fusion Bombs? Cause by everything I know, even heavily boosted with Tritium Fission bombs dont go much past 120kT. China has 12 Fusion bombs?
Also, When you give number of 300Kt, are those multiple warheads? Or a single Warhead? Again, I was under the impression that you didnt make it past 120Kt even with the tritium Booster? Am I just out of Date? Source? I mean, I know most bombs are innefficient as hell with the u238 surrounding the core, but I thought they were pretty good to get 40kt out of the 235 core.
Well. Hmm. I would not be so happy with a nuke going off in downtown NY. It would kill a lot of people. But well.
If we are talking just about Fission bombs, with order of magnitude 20Kt (like what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki [I said order of magnitude, yes Nagasaki was like 12 Kt, and Hiroshima like 18, Order of Magnitude]. Then Dropping has a total kill radius of about a kilometer, and 70% for 1-2 Kilometers, (if detonated at the right altitude, which is like 2000 feet. Detonated on the ground you can cut these numbers in half), and after 2 kilometers drops off quickly (under 20%). Granted this is not including long term radiation poisoning (terrible cnacer 30 years from now), but does include short term poisoning (your skin melting in 1-2 weeks). So you are killing 85%+ of people in 1/2(3.14* 2**2 *0.62)= ~~4 square miles. Which is a lot of area, and a lot of people. But Manhatten alone is like 33 square miles. So, you are hurting a lot of people. But to really destroy New york City, you need to be talking stuff that does in the many Megatonne damage range (a 5Mt bomb has a total kill radius of like 5 miles if I rember right, and a mostly kill of 10 or so), or a whole lot of smaller Nukes. The Problems with taking out LA, which is far less densly populated, (much more spread out) are far greater.
And it is not so easy to make Megaton weapons. (not that Uranium Enrichment is a piece of Cake, nor is the whole detanotor blah blah blah). Nor is it so easy (or productive) to make Fission bombs of greater than ~~20Kt, cause you have to get more than one critical mass together (not so easy, and well you get less bang for your buck, cause a greater and greater % of the energy goes into the atmosphere). So, to seriously threaten destruction on the US, you really need to DESTROY our cities, which would take Several Hundered Nukes. Even well placed.
Prematurely? Maybe. Illeaglly? By whose laws? International Law? After the U.N. passes a binding resolution authorizing the use of force if Saddam Doesnt fully comply with weapons inspectors?
I mean, I am not so sure where leagality and morality overlap when it comes to war. But, well. There are not so many laws that allow, or disallow war. I mean, other than "you arent allowed to start a war". But then, there are so many acts of war, which dont neccessarily involve shooting anything (cutting off various trade routes, say if the Panama decided not to let boats from Congo through the panama Canal could very possibly be defined as an act of war, which would let, under international law, the congo invade Panama). That it get real easy for one party to say "he Started".
To the extent that there are such things as "legal" wars, the UN authorized its member states to take any actions neccessary, including military action, to force Saddam to allow full weapons inspections, or to remove him from power.
Does legality Justify invading Iraq? Meh. I dunno. I dont know that I think so. In hindsight it seems that it was a REALLY BAD IDEA. Had Saddam not played with the weapons inspectors (and they did repeatedly say he was not co-operating, even as they were asking for more time to complete the inspections) and simply let them wander around freely in his palaces, and we invaded ANYWAY, THEN the invasion would have been illeagl under interational law. However, up until we invaded, he didnt allow unhampered inspections. So, by law, as defined by the various binding UN Security Council resolutions, the US was pretty much in the clear.
See, the DO NOT CALL list is only for People. Residnences, as it were. Businesses are not allowed on the Do Not Call list. Anyone, at any time, is allowed to call a business. If you look at their site (donotcall.gov) you will see it says "home or mobile phone". Not Business phone. Not sure where the rules of the registery are (I called the FTC and asked about this a couple of months ago). So well, a home phone, or cell phone should be easily registered, and if somone calls anyhow, complain, and they can pick up a nasty fine.
But your business, or bosses business. Meh. Not much he can do.
Not to reply to myself, but, well, what sort of moderator, goes and moderates, without having read the first paragraph, and then mods the above parent up? I mean, he asks a question which is answered in the first paragraph of the article. How is that in any way "insightful"?
I dont claim that Belief in God Is particularly Rational. Nor is belief in really anything.
Not what I am arguing about. Just saying. When you are going to criticize. Dont say stupid shit like "illeterate.... that is right people who believe in God are stupid and illeterate."
I mean, people who believe in God are all sorts of things. Some are stupid. Some are quite bright. Some are good, some are bad blah blah blah. I know a lot of rational people who are a lot of things. Many people who are otherwise quite articulate, when it comes to God, are, well. Quite bigoted.
I mean, so you dont believe in God? So what? So I do. So what? Does that mean there cant be a conversation about it that doesnt devolve to calling me stupid, and calling you evil? There is a lot more nuance to it than that. It drives me nuts when people just. Categorize so quickly. That was the point of my original post. Look what it says. I am responding to a guy who just called all people who believe in God stupid and uneducated. Ok ok, the "so you will burn in hell" apparently didnt come across at all. The "no big deal part, I guess didnt mean much. So I get called a Troll, for saying to a guy who is call all relegious people stupid, dont be so anti.
Actually, you remeber MOSTLY correctly. But only Mostly. God decided to Destroy all of Sodom And Gemorah. Cause they were EVIL. And he Came to His man Abraham. And said "Abe, I gonna blow this Joint". And Abe says, what you gonna kill everyone, surely there are good people there. How you gonna kill the good with the bad?"
And God and abe argue for a bit, and the bottom line is that there arent even 10 decent people in Sodom. At best, 8 passable ones.
Lot and his family are the 8. So as a favor to Abraham, God Pulls them out. And even they arent so good. It is sort of, in comparison to the rest of Sodom and Gemorah, these 8 are ok. But look how bad THEY are. THEN you will get an idea about how TRULY evil Sodom and Gemorra were.
That is mostly the Gist of that portion of the bible (there are other things too. If you feel so inclined, go read it. But yea. Lot&co. arent held out as really good people. Just good in Comparison to the TRUE evil of sodom and gemorrah)
Sorry. That was meant and toungue in Cheek. I am a Jew. We dont have so much hell. I mean, some do. Depends which sub-group. The Briskers (and I am not really a Brisker, just closer to them than anyone else), dont worry so much about heaven and hell.
It was a "Fine, you dont believe in God? So you will burn..."
Oh, it just doenst come across right... Ah well.
Like, fine, you dont believe in God so? Big Deal, so you will burn in Hell, everythings even. But, you know, if you want to criticize. At least be clever about it. Sort of the juxtaposition of the relative value of burning in hell, VS. getting a criticism right. It was supposed to be funny. Doesnt come across I guess. Oh well.
Well. The US, as a country, was perhaps, Poor. Individuals (If we are to believe Adam Smith's "the wealth of nations" which I cant be bothered to find and quote right noww). Were actually quite well off. They had a virtually (this, before 1776) unlimited supply of farmable land, and decent weather. So they could grow a lot, and sell a lot. And were, therefore, overall. Quite wealthy (as individuals)
OK. Hmm. I am all Happy with "the Founding Fathers" (aka, Franklin, Jefferson etc.). Not being particularly relegious. And,certainly there isnt much about God in the Constitution (I rather thought there was no reference to God in it, but ok. Dec. Of independence I know has one. But meh).
However. To claim that the PEOPLE who were here were not deeply relegious. Is well. Not so right. I would believe that there were some communities which were not relegious. But by and large, the Early Towns had Churches that were ALSO meeting houses. Sure, in some official way, in washington, if you will, there was this grand idea of seperation between church and state. But certainly most communities were very church-centric.
And just. A little pre-emption. The claim "well everything happened in the church, but people didnt really believe anything, they just went there for the cool bondfires (Am from a town a little south of Salem)." Not a good claim. People who read, mostly did so so they could read the bible. Cause they did believe, not just cause well, it was the only book lying around. The roots of this country, are, in fact, very relegious. The People who worked the farms, sold the cotton, blah blah blah. Were really Quite relegious.
Ok. Listen, I tend to read at +3, so I didnt actually read this Guys Posts. I was just annoyed at the Rabid (and stupid, and uninteresting except to incest Fetishests. And modded up by people who just like to be anti-God, as) Anti-God Stuff that get play time here. I mean. I am not saying I think that the guy who posts his silly "SIX THREE FOUR FIVE WHO DO WE THINK IS MIGHTY ALIVE GOOOOOOOOOOO GOD!!!!!!" Cheers is all that intersting. Mostly I dont want to be associated with him. So, in saying that people who are talking about Lot and stuff are just full of it. I dont want that to come off as, I support the God Squad. Just, I think the group af "Anti" is well. They are the ones who were stupid and got modded UP.
Again. This is not portrayed in the bible as a GOOD thing. Lot, is not considered, oh, a particularly GOOD person. So bringing Lot as your Example of the bible extolling bad acts. Not such a good case in point. Cause well. The bible doesnt like Lot so much.
If your want to rank on the bible, and the positions it advocates, there are enough PROPER ways of going about it. I mean, good people in the bible OFTEN do bad things. So I mean, other that the above post-ers incest fetish, I can think of no reason for picking Lot as an example. He isnt one of the good guys.
Man. I hate sounding like a bible thumper. But well. Say that that is a good example is like saying people on slashdot all advocate kiddy porn. Sure, it is sometimes brought up here. I dont think anyone really SUPPORTS it, though. The whole story of Lot Fucking his daughters (or, if you stick to the text, his daughters fucking him). Is. Portrayed in a rather negative light.
It is so. Distressing to me how many people are so rational when it comes to most parts of life, but then, when it comes to God, are all. Hmm. Anti. Just Anti.
How often do we complain about lack of education for poor kids? Do we say "oh, you are poor, so you must be stupid?"
"Although his methodology was strictly logical, Newton still believed deeply in the necessity of a God. His theological views are characterized by his belief that the beauty and regularity of the natural world could only "proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." He felt that "the Supreme God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere."
I mean, fine. You dont believe in God. All good. So you will burn in hell. No big deal. But, why, oh why be so anti somone who DOES believe in God (not the troll whose comments I havent bothered reading, he is just a flamebait mark him so with mod points. But all the other Theists out here)? And, sheesh, if you ARE going to be anti, at least be clever about it, instead of implying that the uneducated are neccessarily stupid.
and the third link, yet another horror story, by, Frank, Who wait, links to the exact same paypal alternative. You know what, I think I will use that alternative from now on. Cause so many people are having problems with paypal....
Right because the First unverified story from an anonymous source who is trying to get you to give HIM/HER money, to use HIS/HER credit card payment service it TOTALLY reliable....
Meh. Yea. I would have to agree the description of the problem is pretty stupid on Paypal's part. But I got to disagree with you about leaving the account open longer.
Not to be rude, but "yes, lets let this guy bilk several hundred thousand dollars, and then take the money and run. Then we will investigate. Oh damn the money somehow dissapeared" Seems a really bad policy. If something is suspicious, first make sure there isnt a theif at the other end. Then go on. Dont wait for the theif to take lots of money from lots of people on $5 increments. Stop him first. Then, when you have the time, investigate. Hopefully sooner rather than later. But, do stop the suspected person from using your service, BEFORE they have a chance to use your service to steal lots of peoples money>
Paypal Has a bunch of heuristics, as to what is suspicious. No PERSON suspended this account at all (I am pretty sure. I dont actually KNOW. But paypal is pretty big, so it is a good guess). One of those is, If somone is making lots of money really fast, lets make sure they are a real entity. So the error message is a little off. The bottom line is, in 12 hours, shortly after they opened, they got $20k. Paypal wants to make sure this ISNT a scam. One way, see the reciepts that something is sent. You want to tell me this guy is bitching because the ERROR message is so screwy? How often has your compiler told you to look at the wrong line, cause several hundred lines later you missed a semicolon? The account is suspicious. One solution, show us you are shipping stuff. OK. Fine. Bad solution. Stupid Error message. But the underlying "your account is suspicious" seems, to me at least, emminently reasnoble. So a person needs to look into it. People take time. Unfortunate, but True.
And the only assurance that paypal has, that they will, is cause, well, they say so?
I am sorry, but I, for one, am glad paypal has something in place to minimize the damage done by scammers. Does it sometimes step on a real organizations toes? Probably. Sad that they world isnt totally trustworthy. But, in a world where people DO scam, isnt it better to try and keep that a little in check?
Or would you rather paypal let scammers Go on taking peoples money, until somone has the time to getting around to looking at it?
Or is your Gripe "OMG! Paypal hasnt INSTANTLY fixed my problem, OVER THE WEEKEND?"
Cause "fuck you" is so helpful. How long ago did they suspend tha account?
Would you rather, in General, they do the investigation (at least one business day, most likely more like 4-5) first, and then Suspend the account, after a scammer has fleeced several hundred thousand dollars, or that they suspend the account, and THEN investigate?
I mean, seriously, if you were making the policy, and you wanted it to protect people, which policy would YOU adopt?
Then gripe about that. I mean, if there is a problem, gripe about it. But, seriously, How much of a problem is them suspending somone who recently opened and account after a natural disaster, and is raking in $3500/hour? Isnt that something which, ideally, you would LIKE to have get suspended for a business day or two? Until somone has looked into it?
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately For Saddam, his March Co-operation doesnt mean he wasnt in Material breach of 1441.
By March, his lack of co-operation was sufficient to allow military action against him. Could we have waited, and seen if that co-operation would continue? Sure. Does that mean that invading was illeagle? No.
The UN said to Saddam, essentially: co-operate immidiately. Spcifically, announce your plans to co-operate within 10 days, lets see some reports on what you have where in 30 days, and we want to hear nice things from any Inspectors the UN deems acceptable within 45 days. OR ELSE!
That was in Nov. 2002. So the fact that in March 2003 he was actively co-operating (and the US had a bunch of troops on the ground) DOESNT bring him into compliance with 1441. Look he complied briefly in 98, also. He did that from time to time. But by not complying in Nov-Dec 2002, he violated security council resolutions, which, by charter, are binding on member States. I.E. member states are OBLIGATED to carry them out. I.E. the legal argument can be made that the US (as well as other signatories) are BOUND to fulfill the OR ELSE part.
Certainly being bound to fulfill the OR ELSE parts is sufficient LEGAL grounds to go to war. Does this respond to "was it a good Idea?" Or "was it the right thing to do?" Maybe not. But was it legal to GO to war? to the extent that International law is all sorts of Vague on these things, it was as legal as any other military action.
If you want to argue "but the war was pursued in Illeagle ways too many civilian Deaths, Abu Grhaib blah blah blah" You would have a better case. Less with the civilian Deaths, More with Abu Ghraib. But, even there, claiming it is illeagle under Geneva. Is hard to do.
Well, India and pakistan are still at the 12 - 20 critical Masses stage.
N. Korea, 2-5 critical Masses.
So, unless you are talking about Russia, or the Ukraine, France, England, or Israel, (Your Post excludes russian, and I hope we arent scared of France Or GB or Israel Yet), you are talking about a single, or a couple of warheads in a missle. So, you still arent eliminating a whole city.
Dude, That is a fusion Bomb. I was asking about pure Fusion bombs, and fusion bombs with a tritium booster (the tritium fissions, but really is there cause it provides a bunch more neutrons increasing efficiancy-->increasing yiled. Same thing happens in a fusion bomb, except there is also the fusion releasing energy, and you have no issue of critical mass, you can just dump as much fusionable fuel as you want), in general:
A. You have at least 2 U235 cores the trigger core, and the core that detonates the fusion material.
B. The Fusion releases a whole lot of high energy Neutrons, which also serve to Fission the u238 (not applicable in the test bomb) but, which also make the 235 much more efficient. This is why, with enough Tritium, you can get more and of the 235 to go boom. And with a true fusion bomb, really well tweaked, you can get some serious effeiciancy out of the fusion. However, without fission as a major component, and with only tritium to boost the single 235 core, I was under the impression that you maxed out at about 120kT, with a single Critical Mass. I could be wrong, but your article, which talks about a fusion bomb, which are just, well. A LOT more efficient. Doesnt really adress the issue. I mean, you just get a LOT more neutrons around before the core can expand.
I just wanted to ask about a few of you rnumbers.
"though they're the old, heavy kind that are 2MT or more yield".
Fusion Bombs? Cause by everything I know, even heavily boosted with Tritium Fission bombs dont go much past 120kT. China has 12 Fusion bombs?
Also, When you give number of 300Kt, are those multiple warheads? Or a single Warhead? Again, I was under the impression that you didnt make it past 120Kt even with the tritium Booster? Am I just out of Date? Source? I mean, I know most bombs are innefficient as hell with the u238 surrounding the core, but I thought they were pretty good to get 40kt out of the 235 core.
Well. Hmm. I would not be so happy with a nuke going off in downtown NY. It would kill a lot of people. But well.
If we are talking just about Fission bombs, with order of magnitude 20Kt (like what we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki [I said order of magnitude, yes Nagasaki was like 12 Kt, and Hiroshima like 18, Order of Magnitude]. Then Dropping has a total kill radius of about a kilometer, and 70% for 1-2 Kilometers, (if detonated at the right altitude, which is like 2000 feet. Detonated on the ground you can cut these numbers in half), and after 2 kilometers drops off quickly (under 20%). Granted this is not including long term radiation poisoning (terrible cnacer 30 years from now), but does include short term poisoning (your skin melting in 1-2 weeks). So you are killing 85%+ of people in 1/2(3.14* 2**2 *0.62)= ~~4 square miles. Which is a lot of area, and a lot of people. But Manhatten alone is like 33 square miles. So, you are hurting a lot of people. But to really destroy New york City, you need to be talking stuff that does in the many Megatonne damage range (a 5Mt bomb has a total kill radius of like 5 miles if I rember right, and a mostly kill of 10 or so), or a whole lot of smaller Nukes. The Problems with taking out LA, which is far less densly populated, (much more spread out) are far greater.
And it is not so easy to make Megaton weapons. (not that Uranium Enrichment is a piece of Cake, nor is the whole detanotor blah blah blah). Nor is it so easy (or productive) to make Fission bombs of greater than ~~20Kt, cause you have to get more than one critical mass together (not so easy, and well you get less bang for your buck, cause a greater and greater % of the energy goes into the atmosphere). So, to seriously threaten destruction on the US, you really need to DESTROY our cities, which would take Several Hundered Nukes. Even well placed.
Prematurely? Maybe.
Illeaglly? By whose laws? International Law? After the U.N. passes a binding resolution authorizing the use of force if Saddam Doesnt fully comply with weapons inspectors?
I mean, I am not so sure where leagality and morality overlap when it comes to war. But, well. There are not so many laws that allow, or disallow war. I mean, other than "you arent allowed to start a war". But then, there are so many acts of war, which dont neccessarily involve shooting anything (cutting off various trade routes, say if the Panama decided not to let boats from Congo through the panama Canal could very possibly be defined as an act of war, which would let, under international law, the congo invade Panama). That it get real easy for one party to say "he Started".
To the extent that there are such things as "legal" wars, the UN authorized its member states to take any actions neccessary, including military action, to force Saddam to allow full weapons inspections, or to remove him from power.
Does legality Justify invading Iraq? Meh. I dunno. I dont know that I think so. In hindsight it seems that it was a REALLY BAD IDEA. Had Saddam not played with the weapons inspectors (and they did repeatedly say he was not co-operating, even as they were asking for more time to complete the inspections) and simply let them wander around freely in his palaces, and we invaded ANYWAY, THEN the invasion would have been illeagl under interational law. However, up until we invaded, he didnt allow unhampered inspections. So, by law, as defined by the various binding UN Security Council resolutions, the US was pretty much in the clear.
Well, that is pretty funny.
See, the DO NOT CALL list is only for People. Residnences, as it were. Businesses are not allowed on the Do Not Call list. Anyone, at any time, is allowed to call a business. If you look at their site (donotcall.gov) you will see it says "home or mobile phone". Not Business phone. Not sure where the rules of the registery are (I called the FTC and asked about this a couple of months ago). So well, a home phone, or cell phone should be easily registered, and if somone calls anyhow, complain, and they can pick up a nasty fine.
But your business, or bosses business. Meh. Not much he can do.
Not to reply to myself, but, well, what sort of moderator, goes and moderates, without having read the first paragraph, and then mods the above parent up? I mean, he asks a question which is answered in the first paragraph of the article. How is that in any way "insightful"?
Not so mush that Yahoo HAD them, as much as Yahoo gave the chinese Government access to the Email accounts that Had them.
I guess reading the first paragraph of the article is too much work, before launching bold YELLING comment.
I dont claim that Belief in God Is particularly Rational. Nor is belief in really anything.
Not what I am arguing about. Just saying. When you are going to criticize. Dont say stupid shit like "illeterate.... that is right people who believe in God are stupid and illeterate."
I mean, people who believe in God are all sorts of things. Some are stupid. Some are quite bright. Some are good, some are bad blah blah blah. I know a lot of rational people who are a lot of things. Many people who are otherwise quite articulate, when it comes to God, are, well. Quite bigoted.
I mean, so you dont believe in God? So what? So I do. So what? Does that mean there cant be a conversation about it that doesnt devolve to calling me stupid, and calling you evil? There is a lot more nuance to it than that. It drives me nuts when people just. Categorize so quickly. That was the point of my original post. Look what it says. I am responding to a guy who just called all people who believe in God stupid and uneducated. Ok ok, the "so you will burn in hell" apparently didnt come across at all. The "no big deal part, I guess didnt mean much. So I get called a Troll, for saying to a guy who is call all relegious people stupid, dont be so anti.
Meh. Meh meh meh.
Actually, you remeber MOSTLY correctly. But only Mostly. God decided to Destroy all of Sodom And Gemorah. Cause they were EVIL. And he Came to His man Abraham. And said "Abe, I gonna blow this Joint". And Abe says, what you gonna kill everyone, surely there are good people there. How you gonna kill the good with the bad?"
And God and abe argue for a bit, and the bottom line is that there arent even 10 decent people in Sodom. At best, 8 passable ones.
Lot and his family are the 8. So as a favor to Abraham, God Pulls them out. And even they arent so good. It is sort of, in comparison to the rest of Sodom and Gemorah, these 8 are ok. But look how bad THEY are. THEN you will get an idea about how TRULY evil Sodom and Gemorra were.
That is mostly the Gist of that portion of the bible (there are other things too. If you feel so inclined, go read it. But yea. Lot&co. arent held out as really good people. Just good in Comparison to the TRUE evil of sodom and gemorrah)
Sorry. That was meant and toungue in Cheek. I am a Jew. We dont have so much hell. I mean, some do. Depends which sub-group. The Briskers (and I am not really a Brisker, just closer to them than anyone else), dont worry so much about heaven and hell.
It was a "Fine, you dont believe in God? So you will burn..."
Oh, it just doenst come across right... Ah well.
Like, fine, you dont believe in God so? Big Deal, so you will burn in Hell, everythings even. But, you know, if you want to criticize. At least be clever about it. Sort of the juxtaposition of the relative value of burning in hell, VS. getting a criticism right. It was supposed to be funny. Doesnt come across I guess. Oh well.
Well. The US, as a country, was perhaps, Poor. Individuals (If we are to believe Adam Smith's "the wealth of nations" which I cant be bothered to find and quote right noww). Were actually quite well off. They had a virtually (this, before 1776) unlimited supply of farmable land, and decent weather. So they could grow a lot, and sell a lot. And were, therefore, overall. Quite wealthy (as individuals)
OK. Hmm. I am all Happy with "the Founding Fathers" (aka, Franklin, Jefferson etc.). Not being particularly relegious. And,certainly there isnt much about God in the Constitution (I rather thought there was no reference to God in it, but ok. Dec. Of independence I know has one. But meh).
However. To claim that the PEOPLE who were here were not deeply relegious. Is well. Not so right. I would believe that there were some communities which were not relegious. But by and large, the Early Towns had Churches that were ALSO meeting houses. Sure, in some official way, in washington, if you will, there was this grand idea of seperation between church and state. But certainly most communities were very church-centric.
And just. A little pre-emption. The claim "well everything happened in the church, but people didnt really believe anything, they just went there for the cool bondfires (Am from a town a little south of Salem)." Not a good claim. People who read, mostly did so so they could read the bible. Cause they did believe, not just cause well, it was the only book lying around. The roots of this country, are, in fact, very relegious. The People who worked the farms, sold the cotton, blah blah blah. Were really Quite relegious.
Ok. Listen, I tend to read at +3, so I didnt actually read this Guys Posts. I was just annoyed at the Rabid (and stupid, and uninteresting except to incest Fetishests. And modded up by people who just like to be anti-God, as) Anti-God Stuff that get play time here. I mean. I am not saying I think that the guy who posts his silly "SIX THREE FOUR FIVE WHO DO WE THINK IS MIGHTY ALIVE GOOOOOOOOOOO GOD!!!!!!" Cheers is all that intersting. Mostly I dont want to be associated with him. So, in saying that people who are talking about Lot and stuff are just full of it. I dont want that to come off as, I support the God Squad. Just, I think the group af "Anti" is well. They are the ones who were stupid and got modded UP.
Again. This is not portrayed in the bible as a GOOD thing. Lot, is not considered, oh, a particularly GOOD person. So bringing Lot as your Example of the bible extolling bad acts. Not such a good case in point. Cause well. The bible doesnt like Lot so much.
If your want to rank on the bible, and the positions it advocates, there are enough PROPER ways of going about it. I mean, good people in the bible OFTEN do bad things. So I mean, other that the above post-ers incest fetish, I can think of no reason for picking Lot as an example. He isnt one of the good guys.
Man. I hate sounding like a bible thumper. But well. Say that that is a good example is like saying people on slashdot all advocate kiddy porn. Sure, it is sometimes brought up here. I dont think anyone really SUPPORTS it, though. The whole story of Lot Fucking his daughters (or, if you stick to the text, his daughters fucking him). Is. Portrayed in a rather negative light.
Hmm. God Bashers... Hmm.
It is so. Distressing to me how many people are so rational when it comes to most parts of life, but then, when it comes to God, are all. Hmm. Anti. Just Anti.
How often do we complain about lack of education for poor kids? Do we say "oh, you are poor, so you must be stupid?"
Since when does uneducated = stupid?
As to non-stupid people. Newton? Sir Issaac? He was stupid? I cant really vouce for the source but it doesnt stray from what I Have read about newton (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton. html):
I mean, fine. You dont believe in God. All good. So you will burn in hell. No big deal. But, why, oh why be so anti somone who DOES believe in God (not the troll whose comments I havent bothered reading, he is just a flamebait mark him so with mod points. But all the other Theists out here)? And, sheesh, if you ARE going to be anti, at least be clever about it, instead of implying that the uneducated are neccessarily stupid.
and the third link, yet another horror story, by, Frank, Who wait, links to the exact same paypal alternative. You know what, I think I will use that alternative from now on. Cause so many people are having problems with paypal....
Right because the First unverified story from an anonymous source who is trying to get you to give HIM/HER money, to use HIS/HER credit card payment service it TOTALLY reliable....
Meh. Yea. I would have to agree the description of the problem is pretty stupid on Paypal's part. But I got to disagree with you about leaving the account open longer.
Not to be rude, but "yes, lets let this guy bilk several hundred thousand dollars, and then take the money and run. Then we will investigate. Oh damn the money somehow dissapeared" Seems a really bad policy. If something is suspicious, first make sure there isnt a theif at the other end. Then go on. Dont wait for the theif to take lots of money from lots of people on $5 increments. Stop him first. Then, when you have the time, investigate. Hopefully sooner rather than later. But, do stop the suspected person from using your service, BEFORE they have a chance to use your service to steal lots of peoples money>
Paypal Has a bunch of heuristics, as to what is suspicious. No PERSON suspended this account at all (I am pretty sure. I dont actually KNOW. But paypal is pretty big, so it is a good guess). One of those is, If somone is making lots of money really fast, lets make sure they are a real entity. So the error message is a little off. The bottom line is, in 12 hours, shortly after they opened, they got $20k. Paypal wants to make sure this ISNT a scam. One way, see the reciepts that something is sent. You want to tell me this guy is bitching because the ERROR message is so screwy? How often has your compiler told you to look at the wrong line, cause several hundred lines later you missed a semicolon? The account is suspicious. One solution, show us you are shipping stuff. OK. Fine. Bad solution. Stupid Error message. But the underlying "your account is suspicious" seems, to me at least, emminently reasnoble. So a person needs to look into it. People take time. Unfortunate, but True.
So, in Fact, they HAVENT GIVEN A DIME TO ANYONE?
And the only assurance that paypal has, that they will, is cause, well, they say so?
I am sorry, but I, for one, am glad paypal has something in place to minimize the damage done by scammers. Does it sometimes step on a real organizations toes? Probably. Sad that they world isnt totally trustworthy. But, in a world where people DO scam, isnt it better to try and keep that a little in check?
Or would you rather paypal let scammers Go on taking peoples money, until somone has the time to getting around to looking at it?
Or is your Gripe "OMG! Paypal hasnt INSTANTLY fixed my problem, OVER THE WEEKEND?"
Cause "fuck you" is so helpful. How long ago did they suspend tha account?
Would you rather, in General, they do the investigation (at least one business day, most likely more like 4-5) first, and then Suspend the account, after a scammer has fleeced several hundred thousand dollars, or that they suspend the account, and THEN investigate?
I mean, seriously, if you were making the policy, and you wanted it to protect people, which policy would YOU adopt?
Then gripe about that. I mean, if there is a problem, gripe about it. But, seriously, How much of a problem is them suspending somone who recently opened and account after a natural disaster, and is raking in $3500/hour? Isnt that something which, ideally, you would LIKE to have get suspended for a business day or two? Until somone has looked into it?