friend, calling Rachel Corrie a terror activist is all likelyhood vicious slander, but there's nothing constructive about your post. I just spent the last little while reading about her for the first time. It's very sad. Reading posts on IndyMedia, (which sounded a lot like your post), was simply more depressing. We need to convince people not to throw their lives away like Rachel did, not throw fuel on the fire.
The fact is that the Israeli's have got to the point that they simply aren't prepared to risk any more. They are building a fence and they don't care what anyone says about it. They will demolish any houses needed to do that. Protesting westerners will not stop them. Since they get shot at by some while they do this, they use tanks and armored bull-dozers with very limited visibility. The driver may not have seen Rachel, or he may have assumed that she would jump out of the way at the last second, (as many protesters probably do). I would guess that drivers have been to drive on regardless of protestors and that they will "jump out of the way at the last second". Or he may have decided to drive over her because he wanted to and reversed over her for good measure. I don't know what was in his mind, although I hope it is the first scenario.
But there are a couple of facts that won't change no matter what you do. The Israeli's will bulldoze houses and they will drive them forward expecting any protestors to get out of the way. They will not stop just because someone stands in front. You can rail against that, but it won't change a thing. If you think the Israeli government is doing the wrong thing in this situation, please find a way to protest that doesn't involve getting yourself killed for no effect. Sacrificing yourself to save lives is good, sacrificing yourself for nothing is just sad.
This is the real world. It's ugly world in many ways. Pray for peace.
true, but then I just drop by because they're local to me. Or if I don't want to go that far, I just stop into Office Depot. They're always price-matched ncix.
> $20 CDN is still too high. You can get optical logitech's in Canada for $16.50. Of course the page you linked to also has an optical for
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Nazi Germany was a Christian society just like fascist Spain or Italy
Europe was a "Christian society" during the Third Reich, but that wasn't your claim. You said that Hitler was a Catholic and that is patently false. (Unless you believe that him being born into a family of Roman Catholics makes him a Roman Catholic for life). The page you link to says in the first paragraph that the only certain thing about Hitler's religious beliefs is that he was not an atheist. That's very interesting, but I never claimed Hitler was an atheist. I only stated that he was not a Christian and not a Roman Catholic. He certainly made many statements in his life describing himself as a Christian. Of course he also wrote letters to Heinrich Himmler in which he described Christianity as a liar. The Catholic church tends to frown on statements like that, so I think it's fairly safe to say that Hitler made political use of Christian language but that whatever Hitler's religious beliefs were, he was not a Roman Catholic.
Re:uh,, Black and White anyone?
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
Hitler was a Catholic
It's amazing how the same stupid slander keeps rising to the surface. Hitler was born in a Catholic family and later rejected Christianity. He was about as Catholic as Martin Luther and not even remotely Christian.
I'm too busy to do your research for you, but here's something to get you started.
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but repeating the same old lies about the Roman Catholic Church is just silly.
I'd heard of Japanese mistreatment of prisoners, but I was not aware of any execution orders being overturned in the wake of the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs. You wouldn't happen to have a link or a book on the subject would you?
Can't comment on that, but you're the nimrod who picked your username.
That said, you are an embarrassment to your country. I'm going to take that google.ca link to mean that you are Canadian). I seriously doubt that you are sorry you had to bash America. Your tone is aggressive and confrontational, and yet you have the gall to claim that your opponent is the one who isn't open to intellectual debate. Hint: the f-word rarely adds to your intellectual credibility. It's also interesting the note that your "evidence" of the man incriminating himself is from Dissident Voice, a highly biased source to say the least which does not footnote the quote from the gentleman in question. There's plenty of quality evidence to support the assertion that allied actions in Japan were immoral, but you certainly aren't adding to the quality of the discussion. I don't know if you're a troll, but I'm pretty sure you are a fool.
Oh, and nobody cares where you're from unless you're also ethnocentric.
Oh, and nobody cares where you're from unless you're also ethnocentric.
Au contraire, mon ami, the poster was no doubt referring to the fact that there is sustained, mindless France-bashing from many Americans
Oh there is a sustained anti-French bias coming out of the US these days, but it's not truly mindless. None of this justifies the very obvious anti-french bias in the US these days, and anyone who thinks that one doesn't exist is deluding themselves, but let's call a spade a spade.
It is very true that the French would not have been able to get themselves out from under the Nazi jackboot without outside help, (partially because many French citizens were wearing nazi jackboots themselves), and a significant portion of that help came from the USA. It is also true that French gratitude for having been liberated by allied forces including American forces was very muted at the time and has continued to be ever since. The French then and now preferred to pretend that the French resistance was the primary mover in kicking out the Nazi's. The fact that the French insistence on reparations after WWI being a not insignificant factor in the rise of Hitler is rarely mentioned.
It is also true that the anti-French bias in the USA has been long preceded by a virulent anti-American bias in France. France is a terribly ethnocentric country, and that is a large chunk of the reason why Americans are increasingly anti-French. There's an old proverb about reaping what you sow that may be applicable here.
Of course I'm a Canadian, so we're the masters of virulent anti-American bias. We can recognize it when we see it.
Like it or not the US is a different case. Your constitution states very clearly that Americans have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There are two statements in that sentence. The first seems descriptive to me, but the second is clearly prescriptive. More importantly, US rights are given to individuals, not to groups.
The fact is that the US constitution guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, there is a clear solution: replace or eliminate the second amendment. I really see no problem with this. The US constitution is not a secular bible. It can be changed. It even has a mechanism for that. So use that mechanism!
Unfortunately, several anti-gun groups aren't willing to undertake this admittedly daunting task and are instead trying to pretend that the second amendment doesn't in fact say what it clearly does. If you go down that route you go down the unfortunate path of making up the law as you go along. If you get the Supreme Court to go along with you, you end up in the undemocratic world of judicial activism and making up law as you go along.
I believe in democracy and free speech. Judicial activism is to say the least very unhealthy in a democracy. The best example I can think of comes from Canada. Most of our controversial judicial cases these days spring from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few years back, (sorry I couldn't find the date), our court decided to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Section 15). If you read section 15 in the charter, the document clearly does not prohibit descrimination on those grounds. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it should not. That's not the point. The point is that the supreme court is not the procedure laid out to revise the charter. The supreme court's job is to interpret the charter. That does not mean that the court can "read-in" things that simply aren't there at all, even if they "should" be there. (Our court is appointed by the Prime Minister, but even if it were elected, that wouldn't make it the proper channel to revise the charter). If the supreme court can't even follow the laws of democracy in place in our country, we don't have a truly democratic country any more. That's bad news for everyone, but I find that increasingly large numbers of people don't care about democratic solutions as long as their interests get promoted.
North was indicted March 16, 1988, on 16 felony counts.
Yes, Oliver North is a criminal. As little as I know about him, I did know that he was a convicted felon. But that wasn't the accusation made. The poster called him a war criminal, not a simply a criminal. So to back up that claim, are there any links to formal accusations of war crimes that North has not yet been convicted of? Somehow I doubt those links will be forthcoming.
Frankly I know barely more than jack about Oliver North, but your post is just stupid. I know that he has NOT been convicted of any war crimes. Obviously doesn't mean he's not a war criminal, but given that, if you're going to make a bold accusation like that you should provide some links as proof. Frankly, you should do that for any person, but particularly one where NO ONE from their nation has EVER been convicted of a war crime.
Otherwise you're just shouting to make yourself feel cool.
"The punishment doesn't fit the crime" Then don't break the law
That's not really the point. The point is that punishment should more or less be proportional to the crime committed. And I don't say this in b/c I like to record cams. I've watched exactly one cam in my life, and I don't remember if I sat all the way through it. I certainly won't download another. I live in Canada so I have no concerns about being sued for downloading. (Despite the hoopla, the fact remains that downloading copyrighted material is safe in Canada and actually legal in some contexts depending on the material).
Interestingly enough, I'm just not downloading any more. It's too much effort when I can just rent the movie for $3 (that's Canadian dollars) down the street. I stopped for months and just recently tried downloading again. So very not worth my time.
I've only got two complaints at this point. The rising cost of theater tickets fueled at least in part by decreasing competition among theater companies is ridiculous. (The last non-Famous Players cinema anywhere near me just got bull-dozed to make room for a Best Buy parking lot, and coincidentally the closest Famous Players theater raised their prices within a week). My other complaint is missing a TV show from a serialized show.
The first complaint is already taken care of by waiting for the DVD release. The second will be taken care of by Tivo whenever Canada gets an equivelent that doesn't lock me into a single TV provider. Although I admit, as that looks less likely I'm more inclined to think about downloading again. We'll see...
In all seriousness though, theater recording may be a pain in the butt, but that is more than a little excessive. I can't really imagine anyone looking at a one year jail sentence and saying "Wow... only a year in prison? I don't care if I get caught!"
If you're thinking about penalty at all, even a 6 month jail term would intimidate most people.
FileZilla is one I just started using. I'd formally been using cuteFTP and WS_FTP. FileZilla is easy to use for people who have been exposed to these programs before.
Just don't make the mistake of listing only Linux software. Most people still use Windows and there's more to OpenSource than just Linux. Windows users should get exposed to the concept as well.
doh, forgot to sign in so I'm reposting... sorry.
what the hell is a fundamentalist pacifist?
Well gee... Fundamentalism refers to beliefs, so I guess that would be someone who believes in some kind of fundamentals that include pacifism.
The reason you're getting confused by this is that fundamentalist Islam is tremendously violent. The Koran is chock full of wonderful things like instructions to convert people by force and kill non muslisms. While it also true that there are peaceful instructions in the Koran, what many people don't realize is that early surahs (verses) are over-ruled by later ones. (All Surah's are supposedly arranged in the order that Mohammed wrote them down). Fundamentalist mustlims take the violent instructions at face value with fairly dramatic results.
Fundamentalist Christians (normally Protestants) are the other big group to whom "Fundamentalism" is often ascribed. These people also take the bible quite literally. This normally expresses itself publicly with strong beliefs that abortion kills a human life, homosexual activity is always immoral and that heterosexual intimacy should be confined to marriage and the drive to tell others about their beliefs. People frequently dislike Christian fundamentalists, because they don't like being told that they are sinful and need to change.
That's understandable, but there's a big difference between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. Islam is politically theocratic by nature while Christianity gets along quite well with secularism. Part of the reason for this is that fundamentalist Christians believe that faith is between individuals and God, and many see this as instructions to keep faith and government separate.
Now because I want this post to be on-topic, I must say that I find objections to this technology quite contraditory. Most objectors insist they believe in free choice and free choice. Yet somehow it's an offense to a director if someone decides not to watch some parts of a film. Dare I suggest that objectors aren't really interested in choice, they just want to tell others to act as they do? Free choice people. That's what it's all about. The freedom to choose. This isn't censorship because there is no outside agency imposing it. I thought the messianic message of slashdot was that technology should enable free choice...
In that 2 minute delay I had another thought... How is this DVD player any different that Taco providing me with the ability to not see -1 posts or setting my threshold to whatever I want?
The biggest thing wrong with OO at this point from an end-user perspective isn't features or even compatibility. (OO reads.doc perfectly well for most users).
It's that OpenOffice is ugly. Plain and simple. It looks like a crappy piece of software compared to other windows programs, so people assume that it is and won't use it. Putting skin functionality in it (or themes if you want to call them that) would dramatically improve acceptance of OpenOffice. The theming in Thunderbird makes a huge difference when trying to convince people to use it instead of Outlook Express.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a high priority for the developers. I can't complain because it's a free product, but if they want to do some simple to improve end-user adoption they could start with just prettying it up a bit.
Yes, relying on an ATM card is unwise - but the statement that "few banks will exchange canadian money" a few posts above is totally untrue. Have you ever seen a bank that would refuse to take money from someone?
Yes I have. Katmandu in Nepal. Several places wouldn't take Canadian cash. A few refused to take Canadian dollar travellers cheques. Others that did take them gave me a truly awful rate. US dollar travellers cheques were given a rate much closer to the international exchange rate.
Exclusively carrying cash is of course a poor idea. The wise thing to do is carry more than one form of currency and wear a money belt. Don't put all your money in the belt though. You don't want to be digging into that in a public area. I always take the following on trips: ATM card, Visa card, US dollar traveller cheques and US dollars in cash.
sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm aware that the US has coins, what I meant was that you don't have dollar coins instead of dollar bills the way Canada or Britain do. The hole in them is a great idea.
The americans don't use coins: their currency is so low that they have notes for £0.60, and anything smaller than that is just coins which aren't worth the metal they're made from.
I'm sure you're trolling, but I'm a sucker anyway. Coins are a much cheaper way of making currency because they last longer. The reason why Britain has a £1 coin and Canada has $1 and $2 coins is that they last longer than equivelent notes, so the government doesn't have to spend money replacing the worn out bills. The low value of the US dollar would make them more inclined to use coins, not less.
I don't know why the Americans don't use $1 coins, but I suspect it's a combination of two things. Firstly, people in the states don't like the idea. (I know I was ticked when they introduced $1 and $2 coins in Canada). Secondly, there is a LARGE amount of US currency in international circulation. Reissuing it is not to be taken lightly.
In 1975 the Canadian dollar was worth the same as the US dollar.
Who cares what the Canadian dollar was in 1975? What matters is what it's worth TODAY. You make us sound like a sad little country trying to recapture past glory. And it's extremely simplistic to think of a high currency value as automatically indicating economic strength. Should we conclude that the British economy is stronger b/c the pound is worth more than the dollar?
Also, Canadian money will be exchanged at any place where you can exchange American money. Canadians probably use ATM machines when travelling, or even travellers cheques so that they don't have to worry about exchanging money.
Typical of an uneducated American to take cash with them when travelling out of the country. Canadians also aren't ignorant when they travel, and try to fit in by at least trying to speak the language, and carry the currency of the country that they are in.
I'm Canadian, and I travel. If you'd travelled anywhere, (outside the easily marked path of backpacking in Europe), you'd realise that relying on your ATM card is extremely unwise. The intelligent traveller carries a credit card, travellers cheques and US dollars. US dollars are accepted everywhere in the world and many merchants, (most in some countries), prefer US dollars to local currency. EVERY wise traveller takes US dollars with them if they're going to be travelling outside of Europe or MAJOR cities.
Canadians also aren't ignorant when they travel
Only when they post on/. about how ignorant Americans are? Now you're just embarassing my country. Seriously. It's embarassing when I see Canucks shooting their mouths off about things they know nothing about simply b/c they learned in school that Americans were dumb. Please stop.
North Korea also says that there is no famine there. You believe that too?
If they said they had nukes and everyone else said they were lying. I'd say they were lying... But that's not the case. Others either say that they HAVE the weapons, or that they are close to completing them. Just because known liars say something doesn't make it a lie. If they told me the sun gave us heat, I'd believe that too.
Even if they had everything they claimed, it wouldn't be a strategic force, at best (worst) they could take out a city or two.
I wasn't arguing in favour of SDI in my post, but you seem to be. Let's say we can develop SDI, but that it will be
The CIA threat assessment I mentioned earlier. No credible threat for 15 years was the conclusion. Sorry, I can't give a URL, it was something I read so feel free to call me a a liar if you like.
No, I don't think you're a liar. Let's assume that you're right about the CIA and they're right about the threat. (Given the CIA's track record, at predicting things like the fall of the Soviet Union, that may be overly generous). So there's no threat for 15 years. Wouldn't it make sense to prepare for that threat now? I wouldn't want to be told in 14 years that I had one year to develop SDI. I'm aware of the tech problems associated with SDI, and I think that it's an extremely... "ambitious" project. However, I do think that something needs to be done to contain the threat. MAD was always a stupid idea as it depended on people to behave rationally.
In the present political climate, what do you think Bush would do if he really believed NK was a threat?
I think he and his advisors would be VERY careful. NK is not Iraq. The US can beat Iraq without any serious losses. The US can beat NK, but there is a significant risk of MAJOR civilian deaths in the region including civilians in allied nations. (Japan and South Korea). Invading Iraq may or may not have been a good idea, (I think it was), but there was never any risk that TelAviv would disappear under a mushroom cloud. I think the world would be pretty testy if Seoul or Tokyo were wiped off the face of the earth.
Actually, at the present and for the foreseeable future, NOBODY (new; not including China and Russia who already have the capability) is trying to build a strategic missile force that threatens the US
Uh, have you been paying attention the last few months? Korea has said they already have a nuclear weapon and are developing more. They are also developing long range missiles and working on extending them. They are currently able to strike the state of California. They have also said that they will consider any act by the US such as trade sanctions and act of war that would merit a full response. This would include sanctions for violating the treaty that the Koreans signed with Clinton that promised not to develop nukes in exchange for food and fuel.
Now what about these facts would lead you to conclude that nobody new is trying to build a strategic missile force that threatens the US? Please note that I am not arguing that SDI is a great idea or that it is a bad idea, but simply pointing out that your argument seems to fly in the face of the observable facts.
I think you missed his point. The little guy will be afraid to sue the big corporation, but the big corporation will NOT be afraid to sue the little guy. This leaves exactly the lousy situation we have now.
It would also help reduce (not eliminate) the big guy from yielding the big stick (i.e. large legal budget) and smashing the little guy to smithereens.
Having the loser pay costs would not hinder the big guy from wielding the big stick. He still could except now it would be due to his greater ability to absorb loss in the event of losing. (No matter how good your case is, you may still lose).
.
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 1
That was just a minor issue by comparison. The fact remains is that party members vote as a block much more frequently under the Canadian system of government than the American one. The PM also has WAY more power to coerce MP's than the President has over Congress-critters or Senators.
There are of course flaws in the US system, but their houses don't have the high percentage of trained seals that our parliament does. That and the senators are elected down south, but that's a whole different issue. (That and I'm already off topic)
.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is that the Israeli's have got to the point that they simply aren't prepared to risk any more. They are building a fence and they don't care what anyone says about it. They will demolish any houses needed to do that. Protesting westerners will not stop them. Since they get shot at by some while they do this, they use tanks and armored bull-dozers with very limited visibility. The driver may not have seen Rachel, or he may have assumed that she would jump out of the way at the last second, (as many protesters probably do). I would guess that drivers have been to drive on regardless of protestors and that they will "jump out of the way at the last second". Or he may have decided to drive over her because he wanted to and reversed over her for good measure. I don't know what was in his mind, although I hope it is the first scenario.
But there are a couple of facts that won't change no matter what you do. The Israeli's will bulldoze houses and they will drive them forward expecting any protestors to get out of the way. They will not stop just because someone stands in front. You can rail against that, but it won't change a thing. If you think the Israeli government is doing the wrong thing in this situation, please find a way to protest that doesn't involve getting yourself killed for no effect. Sacrificing yourself to save lives is good, sacrificing yourself for nothing is just sad.
This is the real world. It's ugly world in many ways. Pray for peace.
true, but then I just drop by because they're local to me. Or if I don't want to go that far, I just stop into Office Depot. They're always price-matched ncix.
> $20 CDN is still too high. You can get optical logitech's in Canada for $16.50. Of course the page you linked to also has an optical for
Europe was a "Christian society" during the Third Reich, but that wasn't your claim. You said that Hitler was a Catholic and that is patently false. (Unless you believe that him being born into a family of Roman Catholics makes him a Roman Catholic for life). The page you link to says in the first paragraph that the only certain thing about Hitler's religious beliefs is that he was not an atheist. That's very interesting, but I never claimed Hitler was an atheist. I only stated that he was not a Christian and not a Roman Catholic. He certainly made many statements in his life describing himself as a Christian. Of course he also wrote letters to Heinrich Himmler in which he described Christianity as a liar. The Catholic church tends to frown on statements like that, so I think it's fairly safe to say that Hitler made political use of Christian language but that whatever Hitler's religious beliefs were, he was not a Roman Catholic.
It's amazing how the same stupid slander keeps rising to the surface. Hitler was born in a Catholic family and later rejected Christianity. He was about as Catholic as Martin Luther and not even remotely Christian.
I'm too busy to do your research for you, but here's something to get you started.
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but repeating the same old lies about the Roman Catholic Church is just silly.
Can't comment on that, but you're the nimrod who picked your username.
That said, you are an embarrassment to your country. I'm going to take that google.ca link to mean that you are Canadian). I seriously doubt that you are sorry you had to bash America. Your tone is aggressive and confrontational, and yet you have the gall to claim that your opponent is the one who isn't open to intellectual debate. Hint: the f-word rarely adds to your intellectual credibility. It's also interesting the note that your "evidence" of the man incriminating himself is from Dissident Voice, a highly biased source to say the least which does not footnote the quote from the gentleman in question. There's plenty of quality evidence to support the assertion that allied actions in Japan were immoral, but you certainly aren't adding to the quality of the discussion. I don't know if you're a troll, but I'm pretty sure you are a fool.
Oh, and nobody cares where you're from unless you're also ethnocentric.
Au contraire, mon ami, the poster was no doubt referring to the fact that there is sustained, mindless France-bashing from many Americans
Oh there is a sustained anti-French bias coming out of the US these days, but it's not truly mindless. None of this justifies the very obvious anti-french bias in the US these days, and anyone who thinks that one doesn't exist is deluding themselves, but let's call a spade a spade.
It is very true that the French would not have been able to get themselves out from under the Nazi jackboot without outside help, (partially because many French citizens were wearing nazi jackboots themselves), and a significant portion of that help came from the USA. It is also true that French gratitude for having been liberated by allied forces including American forces was very muted at the time and has continued to be ever since. The French then and now preferred to pretend that the French resistance was the primary mover in kicking out the Nazi's. The fact that the French insistence on reparations after WWI being a not insignificant factor in the rise of Hitler is rarely mentioned.
It is also true that the anti-French bias in the USA has been long preceded by a virulent anti-American bias in France. France is a terribly ethnocentric country, and that is a large chunk of the reason why Americans are increasingly anti-French. There's an old proverb about reaping what you sow that may be applicable here.
Of course I'm a Canadian, so we're the masters of virulent anti-American bias. We can recognize it when we see it.
If it weren't for the fact that attitudes like yours have consequences your post would be rather funny. Before we begin, I should point out that I'm Canadian and we have rather than our American friends to the south. In our case it is simply a matter of the popularity of the law because we have no right to bear arms in our consitution. Therefore our duly elected government may enact any law on the subject.
Like it or not the US is a different case. Your constitution states very clearly that Americans have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There are two statements in that sentence. The first seems descriptive to me, but the second is clearly prescriptive. More importantly, US rights are given to individuals, not to groups.
The fact is that the US constitution guarantees no infringement of the right to bear arms. If you don't like that, there is a clear solution: replace or eliminate the second amendment. I really see no problem with this. The US constitution is not a secular bible. It can be changed. It even has a mechanism for that. So use that mechanism!
Unfortunately, several anti-gun groups aren't willing to undertake this admittedly daunting task and are instead trying to pretend that the second amendment doesn't in fact say what it clearly does. If you go down that route you go down the unfortunate path of making up the law as you go along. If you get the Supreme Court to go along with you, you end up in the undemocratic world of judicial activism and making up law as you go along.
I believe in democracy and free speech. Judicial activism is to say the least very unhealthy in a democracy. The best example I can think of comes from Canada. Most of our controversial judicial cases these days spring from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few years back, (sorry I couldn't find the date), our court decided to add "sexual orientation" as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. (Section 15). If you read section 15 in the charter, the document clearly does not prohibit descrimination on those grounds. Perhaps it should. Perhaps it should not. That's not the point. The point is that the supreme court is not the procedure laid out to revise the charter. The supreme court's job is to interpret the charter. That does not mean that the court can "read-in" things that simply aren't there at all, even if they "should" be there. (Our court is appointed by the Prime Minister, but even if it were elected, that wouldn't make it the proper channel to revise the charter). If the supreme court can't even follow the laws of democracy in place in our country, we don't have a truly democratic country any more. That's bad news for everyone, but I find that increasingly large numbers of people don't care about democratic solutions as long as their interests get promoted.
Yes, Oliver North is a criminal. As little as I know about him, I did know that he was a convicted felon. But that wasn't the accusation made. The poster called him a war criminal, not a simply a criminal. So to back up that claim, are there any links to formal accusations of war crimes that North has not yet been convicted of? Somehow I doubt those links will be forthcoming.
Frankly I know barely more than jack about Oliver North, but your post is just stupid. I know that he has NOT been convicted of any war crimes. Obviously doesn't mean he's not a war criminal, but given that, if you're going to make a bold accusation like that you should provide some links as proof. Frankly, you should do that for any person, but particularly one where NO ONE from their nation has EVER been convicted of a war crime.
Otherwise you're just shouting to make yourself feel cool.
That's not really the point. The point is that punishment should more or less be proportional to the crime committed. And I don't say this in b/c I like to record cams. I've watched exactly one cam in my life, and I don't remember if I sat all the way through it. I certainly won't download another. I live in Canada so I have no concerns about being sued for downloading. (Despite the hoopla, the fact remains that downloading copyrighted material is safe in Canada and actually legal in some contexts depending on the material).
Interestingly enough, I'm just not downloading any more. It's too much effort when I can just rent the movie for $3 (that's Canadian dollars) down the street. I stopped for months and just recently tried downloading again. So very not worth my time.
I've only got two complaints at this point. The rising cost of theater tickets fueled at least in part by decreasing competition among theater companies is ridiculous. (The last non-Famous Players cinema anywhere near me just got bull-dozed to make room for a Best Buy parking lot, and coincidentally the closest Famous Players theater raised their prices within a week). My other complaint is missing a TV show from a serialized show.
The first complaint is already taken care of by waiting for the DVD release. The second will be taken care of by Tivo whenever Canada gets an equivelent that doesn't lock me into a single TV provider. Although I admit, as that looks less likely I'm more inclined to think about downloading again. We'll see...
In all seriousness though, theater recording may be a pain in the butt, but that is more than a little excessive. I can't really imagine anyone looking at a one year jail sentence and saying "Wow... only a year in prison? I don't care if I get caught!"
If you're thinking about penalty at all, even a 6 month jail term would intimidate most people.
except for the last line, but then a little bit of necromancy is exactly what's required to liven up Quebec...
Just don't make the mistake of listing only Linux software. Most people still use Windows and there's more to OpenSource than just Linux. Windows users should get exposed to the concept as well.
Well gee... Fundamentalism refers to beliefs, so I guess that would be someone who believes in some kind of fundamentals that include pacifism.
The reason you're getting confused by this is that fundamentalist Islam is tremendously violent. The Koran is chock full of wonderful things like instructions to convert people by force and kill non muslisms. While it also true that there are peaceful instructions in the Koran, what many people don't realize is that early surahs (verses) are over-ruled by later ones. (All Surah's are supposedly arranged in the order that Mohammed wrote them down). Fundamentalist mustlims take the violent instructions at face value with fairly dramatic results. Fundamentalist Christians (normally Protestants) are the other big group to whom "Fundamentalism" is often ascribed. These people also take the bible quite literally. This normally expresses itself publicly with strong beliefs that abortion kills a human life, homosexual activity is always immoral and that heterosexual intimacy should be confined to marriage and the drive to tell others about their beliefs. People frequently dislike Christian fundamentalists, because they don't like being told that they are sinful and need to change. That's understandable, but there's a big difference between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. Islam is politically theocratic by nature while Christianity gets along quite well with secularism. Part of the reason for this is that fundamentalist Christians believe that faith is between individuals and God, and many see this as instructions to keep faith and government separate. Now because I want this post to be on-topic, I must say that I find objections to this technology quite contraditory. Most objectors insist they believe in free choice and free choice. Yet somehow it's an offense to a director if someone decides not to watch some parts of a film. Dare I suggest that objectors aren't really interested in choice, they just want to tell others to act as they do? Free choice people. That's what it's all about. The freedom to choose. This isn't censorship because there is no outside agency imposing it. I thought the messianic message of slashdot was that technology should enable free choice...
In that 2 minute delay I had another thought... How is this DVD player any different that Taco providing me with the ability to not see -1 posts or setting my threshold to whatever I want?
It's that OpenOffice is ugly. Plain and simple. It looks like a crappy piece of software compared to other windows programs, so people assume that it is and won't use it. Putting skin functionality in it (or themes if you want to call them that) would dramatically improve acceptance of OpenOffice. The theming in Thunderbird makes a huge difference when trying to convince people to use it instead of Outlook Express.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a high priority for the developers. I can't complain because it's a free product, but if they want to do some simple to improve end-user adoption they could start with just prettying it up a bit.
Yes I have. Katmandu in Nepal. Several places wouldn't take Canadian cash. A few refused to take Canadian dollar travellers cheques. Others that did take them gave me a truly awful rate. US dollar travellers cheques were given a rate much closer to the international exchange rate.
Exclusively carrying cash is of course a poor idea. The wise thing to do is carry more than one form of currency and wear a money belt. Don't put all your money in the belt though. You don't want to be digging into that in a public area. I always take the following on trips: ATM card, Visa card, US dollar traveller cheques and US dollars in cash.
sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm aware that the US has coins, what I meant was that you don't have dollar coins instead of dollar bills the way Canada or Britain do. The hole in them is a great idea.
I'm sure you're trolling, but I'm a sucker anyway. Coins are a much cheaper way of making currency because they last longer. The reason why Britain has a £1 coin and Canada has $1 and $2 coins is that they last longer than equivelent notes, so the government doesn't have to spend money replacing the worn out bills. The low value of the US dollar would make them more inclined to use coins, not less.
I don't know why the Americans don't use $1 coins, but I suspect it's a combination of two things. Firstly, people in the states don't like the idea. (I know I was ticked when they introduced $1 and $2 coins in Canada). Secondly, there is a LARGE amount of US currency in international circulation. Reissuing it is not to be taken lightly.
Who cares what the Canadian dollar was in 1975? What matters is what it's worth TODAY. You make us sound like a sad little country trying to recapture past glory. And it's extremely simplistic to think of a high currency value as automatically indicating economic strength. Should we conclude that the British economy is stronger b/c the pound is worth more than the dollar?
Also, Canadian money will be exchanged at any place where you can exchange American money. Canadians probably use ATM machines when travelling, or even travellers cheques so that they don't have to worry about exchanging money. Typical of an uneducated American to take cash with them when travelling out of the country. Canadians also aren't ignorant when they travel, and try to fit in by at least trying to speak the language, and carry the currency of the country that they are in.
I'm Canadian, and I travel. If you'd travelled anywhere, (outside the easily marked path of backpacking in Europe), you'd realise that relying on your ATM card is extremely unwise. The intelligent traveller carries a credit card, travellers cheques and US dollars. US dollars are accepted everywhere in the world and many merchants, (most in some countries), prefer US dollars to local currency. EVERY wise traveller takes US dollars with them if they're going to be travelling outside of Europe or MAJOR cities.
Canadians also aren't ignorant when they travel
Only when they post on /. about how ignorant Americans are? Now you're just embarassing my country. Seriously. It's embarassing when I see Canucks shooting their mouths off about things they know nothing about simply b/c they learned in school that Americans were dumb. Please stop.
If they said they had nukes and everyone else said they were lying. I'd say they were lying... But that's not the case. Others either say that they HAVE the weapons, or that they are close to completing them. Just because known liars say something doesn't make it a lie. If they told me the sun gave us heat, I'd believe that too.
Even if they had everything they claimed, it wouldn't be a strategic force, at best (worst) they could take out a city or two.
I wasn't arguing in favour of SDI in my post, but you seem to be. Let's say we can develop SDI, but that it will be
The CIA threat assessment I mentioned earlier. No credible threat for 15 years was the conclusion. Sorry, I can't give a URL, it was something I read so feel free to call me a a liar if you like.
No, I don't think you're a liar. Let's assume that you're right about the CIA and they're right about the threat. (Given the CIA's track record, at predicting things like the fall of the Soviet Union, that may be overly generous). So there's no threat for 15 years. Wouldn't it make sense to prepare for that threat now? I wouldn't want to be told in 14 years that I had one year to develop SDI. I'm aware of the tech problems associated with SDI, and I think that it's an extremely... "ambitious" project. However, I do think that something needs to be done to contain the threat. MAD was always a stupid idea as it depended on people to behave rationally.
In the present political climate, what do you think Bush would do if he really believed NK was a threat?
I think he and his advisors would be VERY careful. NK is not Iraq. The US can beat Iraq without any serious losses. The US can beat NK, but there is a significant risk of MAJOR civilian deaths in the region including civilians in allied nations. (Japan and South Korea). Invading Iraq may or may not have been a good idea, (I think it was), but there was never any risk that TelAviv would disappear under a mushroom cloud. I think the world would be pretty testy if Seoul or Tokyo were wiped off the face of the earth.
Uh, have you been paying attention the last few months? Korea has said they already have a nuclear weapon and are developing more. They are also developing long range missiles and working on extending them. They are currently able to strike the state of California. They have also said that they will consider any act by the US such as trade sanctions and act of war that would merit a full response. This would include sanctions for violating the treaty that the Koreans signed with Clinton that promised not to develop nukes in exchange for food and fuel.
Now what about these facts would lead you to conclude that nobody new is trying to build a strategic missile force that threatens the US? Please note that I am not arguing that SDI is a great idea or that it is a bad idea, but simply pointing out that your argument seems to fly in the face of the observable facts.
It would also help reduce (not eliminate) the big guy from yielding the big stick (i.e. large legal budget) and smashing the little guy to smithereens.
Having the loser pay costs would not hinder the big guy from wielding the big stick. He still could except now it would be due to his greater ability to absorb loss in the event of losing. (No matter how good your case is, you may still lose).
.
There are of course flaws in the US system, but their houses don't have the high percentage of trained seals that our parliament does. That and the senators are elected down south, but that's a whole different issue. (That and I'm already off topic) .
.