Do you seriously think "not trying to destroy your neighbor" is too high a standard to hold anyone to? Please. Get serious.
No. That wasn't your standard. Your standard was that they bury their weapons and not use them again except when it meets your arbitrary definition of "self-defense". I think that is too high a standard, and I don't know any country in the world that would meet it. Would Israel meet that standard that you conspicuously don't hold them too? Let's see...Israel has been conducting massacres (yes, documented and proven military operations killing thousands of proven-unarmed civilians) for several decades now. So no. You only hold Palestine to your one-sided standard. Let me know when you've decided to expect Israel to make a "credible commitment to peace". Also, let me know when you're tired of attacking straw men.
If its about that guy who was embedded in UK environmental organisations then I don't think he had to be having sex to be involved. Either that or I never got invited to the right demonstrations.
I don't think the sex happens at the demonstration.
I see. I hadn't considered the aim of trying to sleep with someone you found uninteresting.
People can be physically attractive and yet uninteresting in every other way. Most men have pretended to be interested in what a girl was saying when really all he was interested in was her body, at least once in their lives.
The problem isn't so much with your logic as with the definition of "mainstream media," which invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses. If you're on the right, then Mainstream = CNN, NYT, and possibly MSNBC. If you're on the left, then Mainstream = FOX News, the WSJ, and possibly CNN.
That's really dumb, because those are all mainstream. My point was that people whose information comes exclusively from the bunch of all those you mentioned (on both "right" and "left") along with other similar sources have a greater tendency to support the War on Terror than people who base their opinions on a combination of the above sources plus independent research, independent media, and hearing from various people (with various perspectives) who are directly involved in or directly affected by the War on Terror.
Both sides are justified, because all of those sources can be considered "mainstream," which is basically synonymous with popular, and because those sources subjectively (or objectively) oppose their viewpoints.
People who deride the "mainstream media" but then hold either Fox or MSNBC up as a paragon of independence are committing intellectual dishonesty. I try to avoid discussions with such people whether they agree with me on most things or not, and seek out people who value consistency and intellectual rigor more highly than hearing voices that agrees with them. That shit's all mainstream, it all has corporate and (ironically) pro-government biases (though sometimes obscured by anti-government rhetoric) and it all definitely pushes viewers/readers toward group think of one sort or another.
I was just paraphrasing the 'start my own casino' line from the second episode.
Oh. I did see that episode. I thought you were saying there was actually an episode where Bender talks about nuking religious places. Which I wouldn't put past him, nor would I put it past him to use the same structure to refer to multiple topics. Clearly, my understanding unit malfunctioned. You gotta give me a do-over!
lol well you sure proved me wrong. Good job. If you ever want to stop attacking strawmen, let me know.
How is what you literally said a strawman? You said "99% of the countries on earth live next to each other without trying to kill each other." I attacked that premise. If you didn't actually believe it, why did you say it to justify your position?
Either way, it's just another option, and while we can have too much information, I'd rather err on the side of that, than too little.
Yeah, me too, I was just being facetious. I do think the masses will eventually stop caring and start considering leaks "boring" but it's still an asset when the people who still care and want to act have access to the information.
Note that I don't take the Palestinian side in this.
And there's your problem. You have trouble thinking of it except in terms of sides.
You're right, I have the problem that I think of a conflict between two groups of people who are trying to kill each other in terms of the two sides. Never mind that I take a position which is obviously neither of the two; I used the word "side", so it must be impossible for me to think of it as a continuum!
But I see Palestine held to a literally impossible standard
I don't think it's impossible. 99% of the countries on the earth live next to each other without trying to kill each other.
That wasn't your standard. Your standard was never to raise weapons except in "self-defense", where the definition of "self-defense" is likely to be strategically re-defined as necessary to exclude whatever action Palestine takes and include whatever action Israel takes.
Also, your statistic is clearly false. There are 193 internationally-recognized sovereign countries in the world of which more than ten are currently involved in civil wars and more than forty have been experienced civil wars in the last 20 years, and many others involved in foreign wars. Even the United States found it tough to live on the opposite side of the world from Iraq without invading and killing Iraqis. And that's not even giving counting Europe's two world wars last century. So the true measure is probably closer to 50%. Yet you're somehow willing to hold the Palestinians to a more stringent standard than the rest of the world gets held to. Hmm.
Although the reactors can be self-sustaining so that the input can be turned off, the scientists say that the reactors work better with a constant input.
Hmmm. I'll bet. So does my toaster oven. I wonder if these guys also make "Amish" space heaters.
Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism.
In other words, they're real-life versions of this guy.
What about the energy that was stored in the fibers of the paper? It certainly took a lot more energy to grow the trees used in making the paper, hence you are not getting more energy out that you put in.
Um, yeah, you are getting more any than you put in, unless you personally spent the energy to grow the trees instead of, oh I don't know, letting the sun do it!
I can think of a few reasons that they shouldn't be having sex with the targets of their investigation. How do we know that a particular officer is not unnecessarily prolonging an investigation, so that he can continue having sex with the targets? How do we know that an investigation is warranted at all?
Well, isn't that a valid question of all undercover operations, whether they involve sex or not? How do we know a cop playing a junkie isn't prolonging an investigation because he likes the smack? How do we know investigations into many groups are warranted, rather than an attempt by the government to dismantle groups it merely doesn't like, Cointelpro style?
Keep in mind that undercover officers are professional liars, trained and employed by the government to gain the trust of and betray the targets of certain investigations. If undercover officers are running around having sex with people while they are undercover, as part of that job, then how could anyone ever trust anyone they become intimate with? Your girlfriend that you have been dating for three months could be an undercover cop.
My wife of three years could be a Russian spy. Or a CIA spy. That has always been a possibility. Yet that remote possibility somehow never got in the way of our intimacy. Now the occasional undercover work of a small number of cops is somehow going to?
Besides which, thinking of my wife as an undercover cop actually kind of turns me on. I'm glad you brought it up.
There are certain boundaries that the government and its agents should not be crossing. I would rather see some environmentalists evade investigation than live in a society where undercover cops are paid to have sex with their targets.
Well, I would rather see environmental groups not be investigated at all, unless there is a strong and credible link to terrorism or other criminal activity. I don't think the sex is really the story here.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you seriously think "not trying to destroy your neighbor" is too high a standard to hold anyone to? Please. Get serious.
No. That wasn't your standard. Your standard was that they bury their weapons and not use them again except when it meets your arbitrary definition of "self-defense". I think that is too high a standard, and I don't know any country in the world that would meet it. Would Israel meet that standard that you conspicuously don't hold them too? Let's see...Israel has been conducting massacres (yes, documented and proven military operations killing thousands of proven-unarmed civilians) for several decades now. So no. You only hold Palestine to your one-sided standard. Let me know when you've decided to expect Israel to make a "credible commitment to peace". Also, let me know when you're tired of attacking straw men.
If its about that guy who was embedded in UK environmental organisations then I don't think he had to be having sex to be involved. Either that or I never got invited to the right demonstrations.
I don't think the sex happens at the demonstration.
I see. I hadn't considered the aim of trying to sleep with someone you found uninteresting.
People can be physically attractive and yet uninteresting in every other way. Most men have pretended to be interested in what a girl was saying when really all he was interested in was her body, at least once in their lives.
The problem isn't so much with your logic as with the definition of "mainstream media," which invariably refers to the media sources that the opposing side uses. If you're on the right, then Mainstream = CNN, NYT, and possibly MSNBC. If you're on the left, then Mainstream = FOX News, the WSJ, and possibly CNN.
That's really dumb, because those are all mainstream. My point was that people whose information comes exclusively from the bunch of all those you mentioned (on both "right" and "left") along with other similar sources have a greater tendency to support the War on Terror than people who base their opinions on a combination of the above sources plus independent research, independent media, and hearing from various people (with various perspectives) who are directly involved in or directly affected by the War on Terror.
Both sides are justified, because all of those sources can be considered "mainstream," which is basically synonymous with popular, and because those sources subjectively (or objectively) oppose their viewpoints.
People who deride the "mainstream media" but then hold either Fox or MSNBC up as a paragon of independence are committing intellectual dishonesty. I try to avoid discussions with such people whether they agree with me on most things or not, and seek out people who value consistency and intellectual rigor more highly than hearing voices that agrees with them. That shit's all mainstream, it all has corporate and (ironically) pro-government biases (though sometimes obscured by anti-government rhetoric) and it all definitely pushes viewers/readers toward group think of one sort or another.
Call me when they can attach a generator to it, hook the output up to the input, and keep it running by just putting in cold water and getting steam.
I could say the same about Slashdot.
And Washington DC! :D
No, when it comes to Congress at least, you pour in cold water and get out steam all day long...
That would be the greenest move right?
A strange game. The only green move is not to play.
I was just paraphrasing the 'start my own casino' line from the second episode.
Oh. I did see that episode. I thought you were saying there was actually an episode where Bender talks about nuking religious places. Which I wouldn't put past him, nor would I put it past him to use the same structure to refer to multiple topics. Clearly, my understanding unit malfunctioned. You gotta give me a do-over!
Stupid "History" and "Facts"... They always get in the way of me doing something unique.
Yeah, I would be a world-famous inventor if all those fuckers hadn't invented my shit first.
Well, I'm a male who has never lied to get laid, but maybe that explains why I rarely get laid.
But what lies could you tell that would help? That you're rich? That you don't actually have a girlfriend?
That an uninteresting girl is interesting. I know a LOT of guys that have used that one, to great success.
lol well you sure proved me wrong. Good job. If you ever want to stop attacking strawmen, let me know.
How is what you literally said a strawman? You said "99% of the countries on earth live next to each other without trying to kill each other." I attacked that premise. If you didn't actually believe it, why did you say it to justify your position?
Either way, it's just another option, and while we can have too much information, I'd rather err on the side of that, than too little.
Yeah, me too, I was just being facetious. I do think the masses will eventually stop caring and start considering leaks "boring" but it's still an asset when the people who still care and want to act have access to the information.
That sounds like a line from Futurama, it just needs finishing.
<bender>I'm nuking Jerusalem. With Vatican City and Mecca. And Gold Base. In fact, forget Jerusalem and Vatican City and Mecca.</bender>
Shit. Clearly I need to watch more Futurama. I've actually never seen that one.
Note that I don't take the Palestinian side in this.
And there's your problem. You have trouble thinking of it except in terms of sides.
You're right, I have the problem that I think of a conflict between two groups of people who are trying to kill each other in terms of the two sides. Never mind that I take a position which is obviously neither of the two; I used the word "side", so it must be impossible for me to think of it as a continuum!
But I see Palestine held to a literally impossible standard
I don't think it's impossible. 99% of the countries on the earth live next to each other without trying to kill each other.
That wasn't your standard. Your standard was never to raise weapons except in "self-defense", where the definition of "self-defense" is likely to be strategically re-defined as necessary to exclude whatever action Palestine takes and include whatever action Israel takes.
Also, your statistic is clearly false. There are 193 internationally-recognized sovereign countries in the world of which more than ten are currently involved in civil wars and more than forty have been experienced civil wars in the last 20 years, and many others involved in foreign wars. Even the United States found it tough to live on the opposite side of the world from Iraq without invading and killing Iraqis. And that's not even giving counting Europe's two world wars last century. So the true measure is probably closer to 50%. Yet you're somehow willing to hold the Palestinians to a more stringent standard than the rest of the world gets held to. Hmm.
Although the reactors can be self-sustaining so that the input can be turned off, the scientists say that the reactors work better with a constant input.
Hmmm. I'll bet. So does my toaster oven. I wonder if these guys also make "Amish" space heaters.
You mean like a wood-burning stove?
Obviously it is a hoax. How can anybody claim that 101 degrees Celsius is cold?
I'm a pot of boiling water below sea lever, you insensitive clod!
Cold fusion is not based on the principle of infinite impossibility. Duh.
s/impossibility/improbability/g
Maybe I've had one too many pan-galactic gargle blasters since I last read those books.
Cold fusion is not based on the principle of infinite impossibility. Duh.
They are already commercializing a small reactor.
And let me guess - they are looking for "investors" too?
Just Nigerian Princes. They heard a rumor that they're out there looking to invest tons of money.
Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism.
In other words, they're real-life versions of this guy.
Oh yeah, well call me when they've built a consumer-scale reactor and are installing them in our electric moon buggies for free.
Call me when all energy everywhere in the universe is free. Until then, BO-RING...
Call me when they can attach a generator to it, hook the output up to the input, and keep it running by just putting in cold water and getting steam.
I could say the same about Slashdot.
I see your old Val Kilmer/Elisabeth Shue movie and raise you an older Keanu Reeves/Morgan Freeman movie!
Your move.
What about the energy that was stored in the fibers of the paper? It certainly took a lot more energy to grow the trees used in making the paper, hence you are not getting more energy out that you put in.
Um, yeah, you are getting more any than you put in, unless you personally spent the energy to grow the trees instead of, oh I don't know, letting the sun do it!
...for raining on our geek-parade with your "facts" and "history" and such!
I can think of a few reasons that they shouldn't be having sex with the targets of their investigation. How do we know that a particular officer is not unnecessarily prolonging an investigation, so that he can continue having sex with the targets? How do we know that an investigation is warranted at all?
Well, isn't that a valid question of all undercover operations, whether they involve sex or not? How do we know a cop playing a junkie isn't prolonging an investigation because he likes the smack? How do we know investigations into many groups are warranted, rather than an attempt by the government to dismantle groups it merely doesn't like, Cointelpro style?
Keep in mind that undercover officers are professional liars, trained and employed by the government to gain the trust of and betray the targets of certain investigations. If undercover officers are running around having sex with people while they are undercover, as part of that job, then how could anyone ever trust anyone they become intimate with? Your girlfriend that you have been dating for three months could be an undercover cop.
My wife of three years could be a Russian spy. Or a CIA spy. That has always been a possibility. Yet that remote possibility somehow never got in the way of our intimacy. Now the occasional undercover work of a small number of cops is somehow going to?
Besides which, thinking of my wife as an undercover cop actually kind of turns me on. I'm glad you brought it up.
There are certain boundaries that the government and its agents should not be crossing. I would rather see some environmentalists evade investigation than live in a society where undercover cops are paid to have sex with their targets.
Well, I would rather see environmental groups not be investigated at all, unless there is a strong and credible link to terrorism or other criminal activity. I don't think the sex is really the story here.