What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want, if you're an industrialized nation you have to pay third world countries for the right to produce green house gasses."
I'm sorry; this is a quote from the Kyoto Treaty? Funny that a google search doesn't bring up the text of the treaty. Sure, you're thinking, that's because google censored them under pressure from the John Kerry campaign, but try this search and plenty comes up. Nothing about paying third world countries for the right to pollute though. Funny, the phrase "third world" doesn't even appear in the treaty.
Now can someone please explain what is insightful about the above?
So you disprove of all bible Stories just because they are in the bible? Isn't this bigotry?
I said in SCIENCE classes. Yes, I am bigoted against teaching mythology as science. Put it in a philosophy class, theology class, literature class, and I have no problem with it. But not in science class. This has nothing to do with being anti-religion.
Do you want anybody to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV? Why are religous groups any different.
Because the U.S. Constitution separates church and state. I don't want anyone to dictate what adults watch, no, but if anyone is going to do it, it damn well better not be a church. Would you want the content of your TV programming dictated by fundamentalist Muslims?
Rejecting a statue of the 10 commandments just because christians assosicate with it is bigotry.
I said I don't think it should be in a courthouse. I'm well aware of the ten commandments and I'm happy to see a statue of them outside a CHURCH, but not outside the COURTHOUSE. Again, would you want a statue of the Alabama State Code outside your favorite church? How about a statue of the Koran or the Talmud outside of your public school? How about the Necronomicon?
The Old Testament is there to teach us through the experience of the Isrealites that laws are not sufficient to make us good because you can perform the requirements of the law and appear good on the outside but be very bad on the inside.
Well, that's nice, and I even agree with it, but the law should not be used to promote that "experience of goodness outside the law." The law is the law and it should serve the public, not the dictates of a particular church. I am happy about Christianity or any other religion trying to change people from the inside out, as you say, but I do not want it forced on the public (at public expense) in public arenas like (public) schools, courts, and laws. It seems like you agree with me on this yet you question why we shouldn't teach creationism in science class or put the ten commandments on public buildings.
I agree with you that Bush's re-election is a result of bigotry rather than Christianity. There are a great many Christians who do not espouse the bigoted views of the President and his followers on the far right. I have no problem with Christianity or Christians per se; it is just the ones who want to make their religion the law of the land that really irk me. And it saddens me that they have so much influence on the President.
Dude, this update includes 10% more Jobs Reality Distortion Field so not only can you divide by zero; you can even get the square root of -1. It still doesn't change the number of mouse buttons though; we have to wait for 10.3.7 for that.
First, after he won the election and the popular vote, I'm not sure you can pretend W's "solution" is unpopular anymore.
Second, why are you so afraid to acknowledge fear of terrorism? It's not a bad thing. I voted for Kerry based in part on fear of terrorism. I don't expect anyone to "save" us either, but I do fear it and would like a president whose plan I think will diminish it. I don't fear it personally -- the risk of any individual being attacked by terrorists is pretty slim -- but I do fear it in terms of what it does to our country and around the world. People blowing up planes, beheading Americans, etc. is scary. Fear does not have to mean you curl into a fetal ball and close your eyes.
I've made the arguments above why I think GWB is wrong on terrorism. I think his record speaks for itself; terrorism has increased massively since the invasion of Iraq (I think the invasion of Afghanistan was appropriate but that we should have stuck with it until we destroyed al Qaeda and OBL) and we have given Islamist militants a new place to thrive (Iraq) complete with weapons that we aren't watching for them to steal and a riled up populace who keeps losing civilian relatives to US bombs to recruit.
Finally, in response to your whine about "why do you bother to vote" - I don't expect everyone to feel the same as me, and I do value the fact that we have a democracy with different opinions. I'm not sure I said anything that suggests otherwise. Are you saying that if I vote I should just keep my opinions to myself, or ONLY express them at the ballot box? Voting is only one aspect of the democratic tradition. Public deliberation is another.
Shotguns are prone to failure. Then people will demand a re-shoot. The only verifiable solution is to equip the robots with laser beams. Frickin' laser beams, of course. On their heads.
You do not even need a "serious challenge" to have a recount. There need not be suspicion of foul play. Many states require by law a recount whenever the vote is close within a certain range.
Actually, it's Bush who is making the problem worse. Much worse. It is going to take decades to roll back Islamic extremism just to the point that it was at before Bush responded to 9-11. But if you think we're still fighting the Crusades, you are not going to understand this anyway. But don't pretend it's not fear when you say you want a president who will save you from Islamic extremism. Surely you are capable of at least understanding that.
This is miscommunication at its best. I only brought up the Dixiecrats to make fun of the idea that my argument was out of date. My whole point was that they don't matter. So we agree on that.
I don't think all Republicans are bigots. I DO think they as a group pursue bigoted policies and that their politicians DO insult people in both their speeches and policies. Perhaps we disagree; that's fine.
The Dixiecrats were democrats, yes, that's what I said. You're accusing me of casting 50 year old aspersions; if I was I would be saying things about the Democrats. But that was 50 years ago; they left the Democratic party over civil rights... and guess where they went? Get it now?
I think the education would be money better spent. We might even end up with politicians who know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland.
I'll settle for politicians who know enough science to undrerstand that spending millions on teleportation is ludicrous.
Sadly, this isn't the US government's first foray into "psychic warfare"; I remember in the 80's reading about the pentagon funding a scheme to learn about time travel so that we could deal with ballistic missiles by sending them off to explode harmlessly in the past. It IS funny, but I wish I were joking.
And Tiger! Tiger! sounds a lot like a poem by William Blake from whom Bester borrowed the meter for "Gully foyle is my name..." I don't really know King's work except for the movies but I can't imagine he borrowed this stuff without in some way paying respects to Bester. I should hope so anyway; Bester's was a great book, many people see it as foundational reading for understanding the "cyberpunk" sci fi of a few decades later.
What kind of laser beam weapon could be so ridiculously preposterous that it would be harder to explain to Congress than the fact that we're wasting money on teleportation??
Not at all -- I don't assume anything at all about all Christians. I personally know many Christians who do not think this way. My comments were not aimed at Christians per se but at the ones you call "whackos." I have no problem with what you or any other Christian chooses as faith; I just don't want it shoved down my throat as a matter of public policy. That was my whole point.
Ummm, 50 years ago, a lot of the Republican were called "Dixiecrats"; get it, the "crat" meant "Democrat." The "party of inclusion"? You have got to be kidding. I realize a lot of people buy that rhetoric but look at the POLICIES Bush & Co. have pursued. I should also add "scientists" to the list of people they have been insulting.
Anyway that's my humble 2 cents; I don't expect to convince anyone who doesn't already agree. It's just sad how polarized things have gotten.
It's interesting that the more accurate, less "hoaxy" chart still comes out the same way. I also find it interesting that District of Columbia is one of the lowest on the IQ chart -- must be all those politicians bringing the average down:)
I'm not psychic; I'm basing what I said on what you posted. If you voted based on terrorism, you voted out of fear. Your fear of admitting that fact is irrelevant. I don't think it is a problem to have fear of terrorism -- I fear terrorism (among other things) which is why I voted for Kerry. But I chose Kerry because he was better than Bush -- not because he has the right answer, because I don't think he does. But I know for a fact that Bush has the WRONG answer, that he let al Qaeda regroup in Afghanistan while he went chasing after Saddam. And you're wrong; al Qaeda had NO camps in Iraq, unless you count the MEK camps -- MEK was associated with al Qaeda but their camps were in the US-controlled no-fly zones and we were giving them fucking money!! NOW, thanks to Bush's family grudge against Saddam, Iraq is crawling with al Qaeda members as well as many new terrorist organizations that we know next to nothing about. And don't forget that Bush gave al Qaeda almost a month to get out of the camps in Afghanistan after 9-11 because he spent the time trying to talk his advisers into invading Iraq first!
I know what you're saying about a lot of liberals who think that terrorism is caused by poverty, etc.; and rest assured I am not one of those, and I think that kind of thinking is as wrong headed as you do. I think we need a leader that will go after the real terrorists directly.
But you're living in a fantasy world when you say the success of Bush's war on terror is amazing. The war on terror is not about bringing women the vote in Afghanistan. It is about killing the terrorists and marginalizing them in the rest of the Islamic world so they do not get more recruits. It is true that democracy in the middle east will help that, and I HOPE you're right that we are on the road to that, but EVERYTHING I see coming out of Iraq in terms of news and most of it in Afghanistan suggests the opposite -- that we are on the road to chaos, especially in Iraq, if not on the road to more radical Islamist regimes. I hated Saddam Hussein -- and I hated him since the 80s, when Reagan was giving him money and chemical weapons, rather than just discovering my hatred after George Bush wanted to impress his Daddy, like many Republicans -- but at least he was a SECULAR dictator who kept the radical Islamists at bay. We have a LOT of work to do just to get back to where things were in terms of terrorism in 2002, much less to really confront the challenges of 9/11. Sadly, it will be another four years of errors, scandals, and manipulation before we do.
Speaking of scandals and manipulation, don't forget that most of the "evidence" of WMD and Iraqi terrorist connections that turned out to be false came through foreign agents working for Iran. I think you're right that Iran is our next problem but I fear that Bush allowed this country to be manipulated into a war with Iraq that actually puts Iran in a much stronger position.
You talk about bigotry in the south against non-whites and non-fundamentalist Christians. I live in the south, and I don't see this bigotry of which you speak.
Funny, let me guess what color you are and what religion you are. Of course you don't see it because it isn't directed at you. Instead you imagine bigotry coming from those who disagree with your party's politics. Whatever. I'm not anti-Christian and I'm not anti-Muslim or any other religion. But I don't want my kids learning Bible stories in their science classes. I don't want young women to have to get back alley abortions when they need them. I don't want the religious morality of a minority of this country to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV, or what can and can't be taught in public schools. I don't want a statue of the ten commandments outside the Alabama courthouse unless we can also put a statue of the Alabama State Code outside the Church of Christ in Birmingham. And I want to live in a country where the citizens understand why it is wrong to put matters of religious faith and private morality into public law. Does that make me a bigot?
It is important for the Democratic party to become tolerant of Christianity, and realize that there is a significant distinction between the teachings of Jesus and those of Mohommed, and also in the attitudes of their respective followers.
I get it now; you're not just mad coz you think the Democrats are intolerant of Christianity; you are mad because they are not intolerant enough of Islam.
Not that I disagree with you, but I don't understand why we can't say the same about Republicans? Why is it they can continue to insult minorities, non-Christians, city-dwellers, and the poor, and still win elections? I guess we don't make up 51%:(
This just means that even if you pay for YDL they don't want to have to answer your questions about why YDL won't work on your Mac SE. I imagine for pre-G3 ppcs, YDL will work fine, but you're probably going to have to do the tweaking yourself, and you may be trawling through mailing list messages to find information about your video card or whatever. But as I recall YDL has been pretty solid on older machines -- it was one of the distros I installed on a 604-based Power Computing machine a few years ago. BootX was the *only* way to install things then because it was before the newworld roms, and it was not a problem at all.
Of course, if YDL has the latest and greatest graphical tools and lots of other CPU hogging apps installed and running at bootup, you'll probably have a pretty sluggish machine if it's an older one. If you want a streamlined distro for an older machine, you're probably better off going with an older distro anyway -- previous versions of ydl or debian or whatever. If you want the latest and greatest on an old machine, you'll probably have to roll your own, or at least do your best to streamline what's out there, so the performance is reasonable.
So, in other words, you voted on FEAR, because you were afraid that Kerry couldn't fight the terrorists as well as Bush. Never mind that it shows how little you actually understand terrorism or the war against it -- I mean, Bush's strategy on the war on terrorism has been a DISMAL failure, and he has done little besides "appease the perpetrators" in your words -- but don't pretend fear had nothing to do with it, when it's obvious that was your central concern. If there's a fire in the kitchen, it is exactly FEAR that makes you reach for the extinguisher faster. In any case, I admit I voted for Kerry out of fear -- of a number of things but particularly of four more years of Bush's disastrous record on the war on terrorism, which has made Americans FAR less safe than we were four years ago. I wish I could say I knew for certain that Kerry would have done the right thing (which is NOT "appeasement"), but I can't -- he was not the best candidate in a lot of ways. But after seeing what four years of Bush has done I was willing to take the risk because Kerry couldn't possibly have been worse than Bush has been (and likely will be).
*sigh* I know I'm only preaching to the converted here; whatever....
Actually, we ARE able to follow a lot of this money, the big transactions at least. More often than not, the money trail goes through very powerful banking interests who have an incentive to keep such trails hidden, and the enforcement falls to agents of governments who have an incentive not to break up these "hidden" economic networks. Read Modern Jihad for an excellent overview of the trail of money funding terrorism for example. The author makes the point that the economic network funding terrorism is also funding many above ground and legit enterprises, and that governments have resisted attacking economic networks that they too depend on for many things (including, ironically, many counterterrorism efforts). I would not be surprised to learn that the same point can be made about other forms of organized crime.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry; this is a quote from the Kyoto Treaty? Funny that a google search doesn't bring up the text of the treaty. Sure, you're thinking, that's because google censored them under pressure from the John Kerry campaign, but try this search and plenty comes up. Nothing about paying third world countries for the right to pollute though. Funny, the phrase "third world" doesn't even appear in the treaty.
Now can someone please explain what is insightful about the above?
I said in SCIENCE classes. Yes, I am bigoted against teaching mythology as science. Put it in a philosophy class, theology class, literature class, and I have no problem with it. But not in science class. This has nothing to do with being anti-religion.
Do you want anybody to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV? Why are religous groups any different.
Because the U.S. Constitution separates church and state. I don't want anyone to dictate what adults watch, no, but if anyone is going to do it, it damn well better not be a church. Would you want the content of your TV programming dictated by fundamentalist Muslims?
Rejecting a statue of the 10 commandments just because christians assosicate with it is bigotry.
I said I don't think it should be in a courthouse. I'm well aware of the ten commandments and I'm happy to see a statue of them outside a CHURCH, but not outside the COURTHOUSE. Again, would you want a statue of the Alabama State Code outside your favorite church? How about a statue of the Koran or the Talmud outside of your public school? How about the Necronomicon?
The Old Testament is there to teach us through the experience of the Isrealites that laws are not sufficient to make us good because you can perform the requirements of the law and appear good on the outside but be very bad on the inside.
Well, that's nice, and I even agree with it, but the law should not be used to promote that "experience of goodness outside the law." The law is the law and it should serve the public, not the dictates of a particular church. I am happy about Christianity or any other religion trying to change people from the inside out, as you say, but I do not want it forced on the public (at public expense) in public arenas like (public) schools, courts, and laws. It seems like you agree with me on this yet you question why we shouldn't teach creationism in science class or put the ten commandments on public buildings.
I agree with you that Bush's re-election is a result of bigotry rather than Christianity. There are a great many Christians who do not espouse the bigoted views of the President and his followers on the far right. I have no problem with Christianity or Christians per se; it is just the ones who want to make their religion the law of the land that really irk me. And it saddens me that they have so much influence on the President.
I think the poster (or the person he copied/pasted from) just thought the phrase "man machine" was cute.
It is the name of an old Kraftwerk song after all.
Dude, this update includes 10% more Jobs Reality Distortion Field so not only can you divide by zero; you can even get the square root of -1. It still doesn't change the number of mouse buttons though; we have to wait for 10.3.7 for that.
Second, why are you so afraid to acknowledge fear of terrorism? It's not a bad thing. I voted for Kerry based in part on fear of terrorism. I don't expect anyone to "save" us either, but I do fear it and would like a president whose plan I think will diminish it. I don't fear it personally -- the risk of any individual being attacked by terrorists is pretty slim -- but I do fear it in terms of what it does to our country and around the world. People blowing up planes, beheading Americans, etc. is scary. Fear does not have to mean you curl into a fetal ball and close your eyes.
I've made the arguments above why I think GWB is wrong on terrorism. I think his record speaks for itself; terrorism has increased massively since the invasion of Iraq (I think the invasion of Afghanistan was appropriate but that we should have stuck with it until we destroyed al Qaeda and OBL) and we have given Islamist militants a new place to thrive (Iraq) complete with weapons that we aren't watching for them to steal and a riled up populace who keeps losing civilian relatives to US bombs to recruit.
Finally, in response to your whine about "why do you bother to vote" - I don't expect everyone to feel the same as me, and I do value the fact that we have a democracy with different opinions. I'm not sure I said anything that suggests otherwise. Are you saying that if I vote I should just keep my opinions to myself, or ONLY express them at the ballot box? Voting is only one aspect of the democratic tradition. Public deliberation is another.
Are you just speculating or is there evidence that these are the same guys? That definitely would be interesting....
Shotguns are prone to failure. Then people will demand a re-shoot. The only verifiable solution is to equip the robots with laser beams. Frickin' laser beams, of course. On their heads.
You do not even need a "serious challenge" to have a recount. There need not be suspicion of foul play. Many states require by law a recount whenever the vote is close within a certain range.
Actually, it's Bush who is making the problem worse. Much worse. It is going to take decades to roll back Islamic extremism just to the point that it was at before Bush responded to 9-11. But if you think we're still fighting the Crusades, you are not going to understand this anyway. But don't pretend it's not fear when you say you want a president who will save you from Islamic extremism. Surely you are capable of at least understanding that.
I don't think all Republicans are bigots. I DO think they as a group pursue bigoted policies and that their politicians DO insult people in both their speeches and policies. Perhaps we disagree; that's fine.
The Dixiecrats were democrats, yes, that's what I said. You're accusing me of casting 50 year old aspersions; if I was I would be saying things about the Democrats. But that was 50 years ago; they left the Democratic party over civil rights... and guess where they went? Get it now?
I'll settle for politicians who know enough science to undrerstand that spending millions on teleportation is ludicrous.
Sadly, this isn't the US government's first foray into "psychic warfare"; I remember in the 80's reading about the pentagon funding a scheme to learn about time travel so that we could deal with ballistic missiles by sending them off to explode harmlessly in the past. It IS funny, but I wish I were joking.
And Tiger! Tiger! sounds a lot like a poem by William Blake from whom Bester borrowed the meter for "Gully foyle is my name..." I don't really know King's work except for the movies but I can't imagine he borrowed this stuff without in some way paying respects to Bester. I should hope so anyway; Bester's was a great book, many people see it as foundational reading for understanding the "cyberpunk" sci fi of a few decades later.
that doesn't mean we should investigate every hair brained scheme to the tune of millions of dollars.
What kind of laser beam weapon could be so ridiculously preposterous that it would be harder to explain to Congress than the fact that we're wasting money on teleportation??
Not at all -- I don't assume anything at all about all Christians. I personally know many Christians who do not think this way. My comments were not aimed at Christians per se but at the ones you call "whackos." I have no problem with what you or any other Christian chooses as faith; I just don't want it shoved down my throat as a matter of public policy. That was my whole point.
Anyway that's my humble 2 cents; I don't expect to convince anyone who doesn't already agree. It's just sad how polarized things have gotten.
It's interesting that the more accurate, less "hoaxy" chart still comes out the same way. I also find it interesting that District of Columbia is one of the lowest on the IQ chart -- must be all those politicians bringing the average down :)
I know what you're saying about a lot of liberals who think that terrorism is caused by poverty, etc.; and rest assured I am not one of those, and I think that kind of thinking is as wrong headed as you do. I think we need a leader that will go after the real terrorists directly.
But you're living in a fantasy world when you say the success of Bush's war on terror is amazing. The war on terror is not about bringing women the vote in Afghanistan. It is about killing the terrorists and marginalizing them in the rest of the Islamic world so they do not get more recruits. It is true that democracy in the middle east will help that, and I HOPE you're right that we are on the road to that, but EVERYTHING I see coming out of Iraq in terms of news and most of it in Afghanistan suggests the opposite -- that we are on the road to chaos, especially in Iraq, if not on the road to more radical Islamist regimes. I hated Saddam Hussein -- and I hated him since the 80s, when Reagan was giving him money and chemical weapons, rather than just discovering my hatred after George Bush wanted to impress his Daddy, like many Republicans -- but at least he was a SECULAR dictator who kept the radical Islamists at bay. We have a LOT of work to do just to get back to where things were in terms of terrorism in 2002, much less to really confront the challenges of 9/11. Sadly, it will be another four years of errors, scandals, and manipulation before we do.
Speaking of scandals and manipulation, don't forget that most of the "evidence" of WMD and Iraqi terrorist connections that turned out to be false came through foreign agents working for Iran. I think you're right that Iran is our next problem but I fear that Bush allowed this country to be manipulated into a war with Iraq that actually puts Iran in a much stronger position.
No, but an overwhelming majority of the white ones consistently vote to put that flag over their public buildings.
Funny, let me guess what color you are and what religion you are. Of course you don't see it because it isn't directed at you. Instead you imagine bigotry coming from those who disagree with your party's politics. Whatever. I'm not anti-Christian and I'm not anti-Muslim or any other religion. But I don't want my kids learning Bible stories in their science classes. I don't want young women to have to get back alley abortions when they need them. I don't want the religious morality of a minority of this country to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV, or what can and can't be taught in public schools. I don't want a statue of the ten commandments outside the Alabama courthouse unless we can also put a statue of the Alabama State Code outside the Church of Christ in Birmingham. And I want to live in a country where the citizens understand why it is wrong to put matters of religious faith and private morality into public law. Does that make me a bigot?
It is important for the Democratic party to become tolerant of Christianity, and realize that there is a significant distinction between the teachings of Jesus and those of Mohommed, and also in the attitudes of their respective followers.
I get it now; you're not just mad coz you think the Democrats are intolerant of Christianity; you are mad because they are not intolerant enough of Islam.
Not that I disagree with you, but I don't understand why we can't say the same about Republicans? Why is it they can continue to insult minorities, non-Christians, city-dwellers, and the poor, and still win elections? I guess we don't make up 51% :(
Of course, if YDL has the latest and greatest graphical tools and lots of other CPU hogging apps installed and running at bootup, you'll probably have a pretty sluggish machine if it's an older one. If you want a streamlined distro for an older machine, you're probably better off going with an older distro anyway -- previous versions of ydl or debian or whatever. If you want the latest and greatest on an old machine, you'll probably have to roll your own, or at least do your best to streamline what's out there, so the performance is reasonable.
*sigh* I know I'm only preaching to the converted here; whatever....
Actually, we ARE able to follow a lot of this money, the big transactions at least. More often than not, the money trail goes through very powerful banking interests who have an incentive to keep such trails hidden, and the enforcement falls to agents of governments who have an incentive not to break up these "hidden" economic networks. Read Modern Jihad for an excellent overview of the trail of money funding terrorism for example. The author makes the point that the economic network funding terrorism is also funding many above ground and legit enterprises, and that governments have resisted attacking economic networks that they too depend on for many things (including, ironically, many counterterrorism efforts). I would not be surprised to learn that the same point can be made about other forms of organized crime.