Playing outside, in the dirt, is the best activity for children to grow up healthy. I wonder how much immune system development is compromised these days by replacing that activity with TV and videogames.
Futurists don't "predict the future". They discuss the past and present, talk about its implications, and get people in the present to think about the implications of what they do. They talk about possible futures. Which of course changes what actually happens in the future. They typically talk about a future beyond the timeframe that's also in the future but in which their audience can actually do something. Effectively they're just leading a brainstorming session about the present.
This practice is much like science fiction (at least, the vast majority, which is set in "the future" when it's written), which doesn't really talk about the future, but rather about the present. You can see from nearly all past science fiction that it was "wrong" about its future, now that we're living in it, though with some notable exceptions. In fact "futurists" are so little different from "science fiction writers" that they are really just two different names for the same practice for two different audiences. Futurism is also not necessarily delivered in writing (eg. lectures), and is usually consumed by business or government audiences. Those audiences pay for a product they don't want to consider "fiction", but it's only the style that makes it "nonfiction".
This practice is valuable beyond entertainment. Because there is very little thinking by government, business, or even just anyone about the consequences of their work and developments beyond the next financial quarter. Just thinking about the future at all, especially in terms that aren't the driest and narrowest statistical projections, or beyond their own specific careers, is extremely rare among people. If we did it a lot more we'd be better at it. But we don't, so "inaccurate" is a lot more valuable than "totally lacking". Without futurism, or its even less accurate and narrower form in science fiction, the future would take us by surprise even more. And then we'd always suffer from "future shock", even more than we do now.
If we don't learn from futurism that it's not reliable, but still valuable, then it's not the fault of futurists. It's our fault for having unreasonable expectations, and failing to see beyond them to actual value.
No, there's a difference between "attacking your enemies" and "say anyting, no matter how nonsensical, to attack your enemies". You Republicans will ignore everything to protect each other from criticism. Your whole cult is built on cherrypicking like that.
When Binladen attacked us on 9/11/2001, his only specific demand was that the US remove troops from Saudi Arabia. Which Bush/Cheney immediately did. If that's not "negotiating with terrorists", its simply "surrendering to terrorists".
And maybe by the 2010 you could see the difference between "thinking it up" and "inventing it". You could see the difference between saying "I want this to do X for me" and "I want this to use Y technology to do X for me". The difference between the design in Microsoft's patent and an actual implementation.
There's a difference between "running" and "running into the ground". Under an actual moron, John Boehner, the House did little but deregulate the country into ruin.
Under Obama, we've stabilized the country in many ways against the ruin stuffed into us under Bush. Who you voted for twice because you were told that's who Republicans vote for. I felt good about myself voting for Obama, because I knew he wasn't a fool and would remain calm while managing us through the epic catastrophes you Republicans insist on doing to our country. Which is why you'll be voting for her in 2012 if that's who you Republicans pick as the next fool to afflict the country with. You'll say "but it's better than Obama". Simple facts about simpletons.
You're a fool. This patent, like all Microsoft patents (and other patents owned by rich, powerful corporations) will prevent others from making something similar to what it claims, even if the difference is that the "infringing" invention actually works.
If they do have a working model, they're withholding it because they want the patent to protect a broader claim than could be supported by the ultimate specific: a working model.
"Your point is asinine" is what an asshole says who's afraid to just make an obvious ad hominem attack. You're an asshole.
No, most of the Republicans in the House were in office when we went to war, which means that they voted to go to war. But even if these were "new faces", what's the difference? The Republican Party is exactly the same. It never admitted its members shouldn't have voted for the invasion, never admitted Bush/Cheney lied us into war. It ran on a platform this year of "we're going to be the same", and Republicans like you voted for it. You voted for the Republicans who voted for the war, and for Bush/Cheney, too, through all those years. And you haven't changed either.
The liberals and Democrats spent the past 2 years sending banking and other regulations through Congress to limit the government, but the Republicans blocked all reregulation. Republicans have blocked everything, and will soon shut down the entire government (which is mostly working in the service of the public), just as it did the last time it had the power to do so to a Democratic president.
There are destructive policies all around. But they're mainly produced by Republicans (and by "Conservative" Democrats, the fifth column), who even abuse government illegally to to get what they want.
I'd say the party that led us into these wars, torture, domestic spying, banking collapses, and multiplied debt is worse than the party that didn't stop them. That would be the Republican Party being worse than the Democratic Party. And yet you voted for its members to take over the House this month.
But that's not enough "prior art" to prevent a legitimate patent (eg. one claiming only an actual working model), any more than this MS patent should be enough to do so. More or less talk about an invention are roughly the same, until there's an actual working invention. Then everything changes, and an actual invention is legitimately protectable.
Yes, because your evidence (even if it does exist) is coupled with your bad "logic". It doesn't prove what you say. As so many others have explained in response to your post.
What's awesome is how complete you Republicans are encased in denial/projection. Your evidence is easily shown not to support your conclusion, and easily shown to support the conclusion that debunks you. To which you respond that I am not swayed by the evidence, when that is precisely your problem and not mine. Really, though, the word is "awful". You Republicans are truly awful. You're not even good torturers. Where's Binladen?
Yeah, I missed that because it didn't happen. Other countries, or rather the UN (which you Republicans always hate, except when you claim it backs you up), sent inspectors because that's how Iraq was kept from making WMD. Which is how we knew that there were no WMD. Which is what the UN reports said. Which is what so many people in America, and so many foreign governments said.
But you Republicans don't care. Bush said so, so everyone said so. And that's why we found WMD, saved the world, and the US is doing so well.
I said a good deal more than just "an electrically activated memory plastic display", but not enough to patent anything. But neither is coming up with "how to make one" enough to (legitimately) patent; actually making one is necessary - or should be. Without an actual implementation, a design-only claim is closer to my brief description than to an invention that should be protected with an exclusive monopoly.
I read the patent. Microsoft has come up with a (relatively, to my design) specific design, that is used as "an example". There is no implementation referred to in the patent. The patent uses "one example" to claim the entire class of invention, even if other examples infringe the patent without implementing what the example describes. Again, it is only descriptions. There is no physical model, no actual implementation.
Patents that claim exclusive rights with a physical model are meaningful. Because the actual "idea behind patents" is to protect the inventor while they produce the invention for market, without a competitor copying the design to produce it themself without expending the time and effort needed to produce the design. Licensing a patent is a possible result of patents, but not "the idea behind it".
The publication is to offer other inventors a registry of inventions that are a waste of time to duplicate serendipitously, as well as a catalog of inventions that can be bought in the market. Without a working implementation, a patent does not document an invention, but rather an idea for an invention. Without a model to compare claimed infringers to, any patent is overly broad.
Actual "Bush Derangement" is you Republicans thinking people hate Bush because of some "syndrome", instead of for the ruins he left our country and our world in. Your derangement is so extreme that you think reasonable criticism and earned anger are other people's insanity. Because you are insane.
I find your story plausible (even if there's not going to be any evidence of it). Because I agree with you on what the rightwing culture has become, and I see plenty of instances of that kind of cult among the rightwingers I encounter, not to mention the many very public examples of it.
Except that it's not a secular religion. It's a (somewhat) non-denominational religion, in that pious Christians and Jews practice it. But it is a religious political cult. It's theocracy, even if it's largely cryptotheocracy so far. Crypto in that it denies it's theocracy when directly confronted, but when "safe" (either more privately or simply in practice if not justification) it is straight out theocracy. "Everyone must obey this rule because god says so."
Sure, the theocracy is not really religious except as a way to organize people's total behavior (rather than their moral status), but that's true of all religions. Sure, its designed with the primary value of making money and holding power, but that's true of the politics, too. It's a way of life, and it's not any more secular than was feudalism under the authority of the Vatican. Indeed, America's theocrats attend church and practice religious practices more than most feudal people did.
I think the first movie ("Episode IV") was the best movie, but Kershner was the best director. The first movie was a bigger and more intense one, a true epic. The sequel was harder, though, like most sequels, and was directed by someone who wasn't the overall visionary - someone who hadn't thought up the movie for his entire life beforehand. The excellence of the directing in The Empire Strikes Back can be seen easily in contrast to the The Return of the Jedi and the next three, all of which are sequels. So while I like Star Wars the best, it's not because its directing was better.
If Lucas gets someone else to direct the next Star Wars movies, he might possibly find someone as good as Kershner was, but he's got an even better chance of finding someone better than Lucas was.
Clinton's administration warned Bush/Cheney that the Qaeda were going to attack soon, because Clinton's administration was actively tracking and working against the Qaeda (despite a Republican Congress waving a blue dress to interfere with bombing Qaeda camps). But Bush/Cheney dismissed those warnings, and stopped protecting us from the Qaeda. Even during 2001 Clinton holdovers and the continuing intel showed a specific attack was about to be made, and Bush/Cheney ignored it. After the attack, Bush/Cheney were interested only in how it could be used to attack Iraq. Bush/Cheney counterattacked the Qaeda only enough to mobilize the military in Iraq. Bush/Cheney let Binladen escape, even when he was within reach. So there is some blame for Clinton's failure to destroy the Qaeda. But the amount of blame for Bush/Cheney is vastly larger, especially since during Clinton's efforts the Qaeda managed to attack only one warship and two embassies. Bush/Cheney's watch saw devastating attacks in the US, and even more devastating bad responses to them.
Clinton continuously bombed Iraq during his term, which is why Iraq did not have WMD when Bush/Cheney attacked them under those lies in 2001. UN inspectors reported correctly that there were no WMD. This is your biggest fool lie.
The beginnings of the bank deregulation were made law in 1998 by the Republican Congress, led by Phil Gramm (R-TX) who in 2008 was McCain's unrepentant economic advisor, while that Congress was pressuring the president with (baseless) impeachment. Clinton deserves some blame for signing that law anyway, but under his watch the deregulation did what was promised: grew the actual wealth of the economy across most economic bands. When Bush/Cheney started managing it, and advancing it, it went totally out of control. For 8 long years they could have changed the regulations or just managed it better, but instead they sent it even more crazy. So again, Clinton deserves some blame, but vastly more blame for Bush/Cheney.
You are the fool who has simplified it more than possible to say "both parties were equal", when Bush/Cheney were vastly more to blame, and entirely to blame for actually letting it happen.
You Republicans are so crazy, evil and stupid that you'll tell these impossible lies over and over, and continue believing them yourselves.
Dingbats aren't competent to run the House of Representatives.
You evidently don't know what a circular argument is. Nor are you able to even respond to the debunking of your fallacious "logic". But you sure do crash the stack on levels of projection.
Bush/Cheney's Iraq invasion worked very successfully. It transferred $TRILLIONS into Bush/Cheney crony hands directly from war expenses. It got them reelected despite all they'd done to harm America (including the invasion itself). It drove up the price of oil to over $100 a barrel and in the neighborhood for years, gasoline to around $3-4 a gallon, which transferred more $TRILLIONS into Bush/Cheney crony hands. It demonstrated that the president can do whatever he wants, regardless of the Constitution or even a Congressional majority and successor president of the other party. It let the very rich Saudi who actually attacked us get away while we arbitrarily made war somewhere else, pleasing Saudis who are Bush/Cheney cronies, while hiding the concession to that Saudi's only specific demand: removing US troops from Saudi Arabia. It did a favor for the apocalyptic theocrats working to take over America as the Taliban took over Afghanistan, according to the script for their crusade, so they'd keep donating money, votes, volunteers and online comments. It strengthened Iran, giving credibility to Bush/Cheney cronies who want war with Iran (for all these same reasons).
WMD? Spreading democracy? Containing a dictator? That's all just propaganda. Bush/Cheney don't care about that, except that Americans believe it long enough for the scam to work. And it worked like nothing has ever worked before.
When foreigners thought the US didn't torture people, because it rarely did and punished the torturers when they were exposed, foreigners were more likely to surrender instead of fighting to the death, and to cooperate with US forces instead of cooperating with the US' enemies.
Now that people like you have converted torture into "just another weapon", we don't get that cooperation. Instead we get foreigners and even Americans recruited by the US' enemies because we are nothing more than torturers.
Torturers of many people who aren't guilty of anything except being easy to capture and to abuse.
Congratulations: you've destroyed one of the US' most effective defenses, established by centuries of restraint since George Washington. Along with our own knowledge that we're better than our enemies. The wars in which the US was better than that are the ones we've won. The ones in which the US wasn't better than that are the one's we've lost. Including the current Terror War that you people have been losing at every step.
Rather than talk tough and recommend cliche strategy books that have evidently taught you nothing, why don't you join the military and go to Afghanistan?
I have proof of my design predating this MS design that I linked to.
I didn't say I wanted a cut, but I am claiming I thought of it before MS published. However, if MS doesn't actually build one, MS deserves as much credit as I do, or less since I thought of it first (AFAICT). MS certainly doesn't deserve a patent any more than I do if it doesn't actually build one. Then they deserve a patent only on the specific implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Playing outside, in the dirt, is the best activity for children to grow up healthy. I wonder how much immune system development is compromised these days by replacing that activity with TV and videogames.
Europe bans baby bottles with Bisphenol A
Too bad for the people whose baby bottles were protected by only the free market.
Futurists don't "predict the future". They discuss the past and present, talk about its implications, and get people in the present to think about the implications of what they do. They talk about possible futures. Which of course changes what actually happens in the future. They typically talk about a future beyond the timeframe that's also in the future but in which their audience can actually do something. Effectively they're just leading a brainstorming session about the present.
This practice is much like science fiction (at least, the vast majority, which is set in "the future" when it's written), which doesn't really talk about the future, but rather about the present. You can see from nearly all past science fiction that it was "wrong" about its future, now that we're living in it, though with some notable exceptions. In fact "futurists" are so little different from "science fiction writers" that they are really just two different names for the same practice for two different audiences. Futurism is also not necessarily delivered in writing (eg. lectures), and is usually consumed by business or government audiences. Those audiences pay for a product they don't want to consider "fiction", but it's only the style that makes it "nonfiction".
This practice is valuable beyond entertainment. Because there is very little thinking by government, business, or even just anyone about the consequences of their work and developments beyond the next financial quarter. Just thinking about the future at all, especially in terms that aren't the driest and narrowest statistical projections, or beyond their own specific careers, is extremely rare among people. If we did it a lot more we'd be better at it. But we don't, so "inaccurate" is a lot more valuable than "totally lacking". Without futurism, or its even less accurate and narrower form in science fiction, the future would take us by surprise even more. And then we'd always suffer from "future shock", even more than we do now.
If we don't learn from futurism that it's not reliable, but still valuable, then it's not the fault of futurists. It's our fault for having unreasonable expectations, and failing to see beyond them to actual value.
No, there's a difference between "attacking your enemies" and "say anyting, no matter how nonsensical, to attack your enemies". You Republicans will ignore everything to protect each other from criticism. Your whole cult is built on cherrypicking like that.
Hell, you don't even know what "ironic" means.
This review is so generic that Moodle could be nearly anything and the review could be describing it.
When Binladen attacked us on 9/11/2001, his only specific demand was that the US remove troops from Saudi Arabia. Which Bush/Cheney immediately did. If that's not "negotiating with terrorists", its simply "surrendering to terrorists".
And maybe by the 2010 you could see the difference between "thinking it up" and "inventing it". You could see the difference between saying "I want this to do X for me" and "I want this to use Y technology to do X for me". The difference between the design in Microsoft's patent and an actual implementation.
There's a difference between "running" and "running into the ground". Under an actual moron, John Boehner, the House did little but deregulate the country into ruin.
Under Obama, we've stabilized the country in many ways against the ruin stuffed into us under Bush. Who you voted for twice because you were told that's who Republicans vote for. I felt good about myself voting for Obama, because I knew he wasn't a fool and would remain calm while managing us through the epic catastrophes you Republicans insist on doing to our country. Which is why you'll be voting for her in 2012 if that's who you Republicans pick as the next fool to afflict the country with. You'll say "but it's better than Obama". Simple facts about simpletons.
You're a fool. This patent, like all Microsoft patents (and other patents owned by rich, powerful corporations) will prevent others from making something similar to what it claims, even if the difference is that the "infringing" invention actually works.
If they do have a working model, they're withholding it because they want the patent to protect a broader claim than could be supported by the ultimate specific: a working model.
"Your point is asinine" is what an asshole says who's afraid to just make an obvious ad hominem attack. You're an asshole.
No, most of the Republicans in the House were in office when we went to war, which means that they voted to go to war. But even if these were "new faces", what's the difference? The Republican Party is exactly the same. It never admitted its members shouldn't have voted for the invasion, never admitted Bush/Cheney lied us into war. It ran on a platform this year of "we're going to be the same", and Republicans like you voted for it. You voted for the Republicans who voted for the war, and for Bush/Cheney, too, through all those years. And you haven't changed either.
The liberals and Democrats spent the past 2 years sending banking and other regulations through Congress to limit the government, but the Republicans blocked all reregulation. Republicans have blocked everything, and will soon shut down the entire government (which is mostly working in the service of the public), just as it did the last time it had the power to do so to a Democratic president.
There are destructive policies all around. But they're mainly produced by Republicans (and by "Conservative" Democrats, the fifth column), who even abuse government illegally to to get what they want.
I'd say the party that led us into these wars, torture, domestic spying, banking collapses, and multiplied debt is worse than the party that didn't stop them. That would be the Republican Party being worse than the Democratic Party. And yet you voted for its members to take over the House this month.
As I said, I linked to it, in the GP comment.
But that's not enough "prior art" to prevent a legitimate patent (eg. one claiming only an actual working model), any more than this MS patent should be enough to do so. More or less talk about an invention are roughly the same, until there's an actual working invention. Then everything changes, and an actual invention is legitimately protectable.
Yes, because your evidence (even if it does exist) is coupled with your bad "logic". It doesn't prove what you say. As so many others have explained in response to your post.
What's awesome is how complete you Republicans are encased in denial/projection. Your evidence is easily shown not to support your conclusion, and easily shown to support the conclusion that debunks you. To which you respond that I am not swayed by the evidence, when that is precisely your problem and not mine. Really, though, the word is "awful". You Republicans are truly awful. You're not even good torturers. Where's Binladen?
Yeah, I missed that because it didn't happen. Other countries, or rather the UN (which you Republicans always hate, except when you claim it backs you up), sent inspectors because that's how Iraq was kept from making WMD. Which is how we knew that there were no WMD. Which is what the UN reports said. Which is what so many people in America, and so many foreign governments said.
But you Republicans don't care. Bush said so, so everyone said so. And that's why we found WMD, saved the world, and the US is doing so well.
I said a good deal more than just "an electrically activated memory plastic display", but not enough to patent anything. But neither is coming up with "how to make one" enough to (legitimately) patent; actually making one is necessary - or should be. Without an actual implementation, a design-only claim is closer to my brief description than to an invention that should be protected with an exclusive monopoly.
I read the patent. Microsoft has come up with a (relatively, to my design) specific design, that is used as "an example". There is no implementation referred to in the patent. The patent uses "one example" to claim the entire class of invention, even if other examples infringe the patent without implementing what the example describes. Again, it is only descriptions. There is no physical model, no actual implementation.
Patents that claim exclusive rights with a physical model are meaningful. Because the actual "idea behind patents" is to protect the inventor while they produce the invention for market, without a competitor copying the design to produce it themself without expending the time and effort needed to produce the design. Licensing a patent is a possible result of patents, but not "the idea behind it".
The publication is to offer other inventors a registry of inventions that are a waste of time to duplicate serendipitously, as well as a catalog of inventions that can be bought in the market. Without a working implementation, a patent does not document an invention, but rather an idea for an invention. Without a model to compare claimed infringers to, any patent is overly broad.
Actual "Bush Derangement" is you Republicans thinking people hate Bush because of some "syndrome", instead of for the ruins he left our country and our world in. Your derangement is so extreme that you think reasonable criticism and earned anger are other people's insanity. Because you are insane.
I find your story plausible (even if there's not going to be any evidence of it). Because I agree with you on what the rightwing culture has become, and I see plenty of instances of that kind of cult among the rightwingers I encounter, not to mention the many very public examples of it.
Except that it's not a secular religion. It's a (somewhat) non-denominational religion, in that pious Christians and Jews practice it. But it is a religious political cult. It's theocracy, even if it's largely cryptotheocracy so far. Crypto in that it denies it's theocracy when directly confronted, but when "safe" (either more privately or simply in practice if not justification) it is straight out theocracy. "Everyone must obey this rule because god says so."
Sure, the theocracy is not really religious except as a way to organize people's total behavior (rather than their moral status), but that's true of all religions. Sure, its designed with the primary value of making money and holding power, but that's true of the politics, too. It's a way of life, and it's not any more secular than was feudalism under the authority of the Vatican. Indeed, America's theocrats attend church and practice religious practices more than most feudal people did.
I think the first movie ("Episode IV") was the best movie, but Kershner was the best director. The first movie was a bigger and more intense one, a true epic. The sequel was harder, though, like most sequels, and was directed by someone who wasn't the overall visionary - someone who hadn't thought up the movie for his entire life beforehand. The excellence of the directing in The Empire Strikes Back can be seen easily in contrast to the The Return of the Jedi and the next three, all of which are sequels. So while I like Star Wars the best, it's not because its directing was better.
If Lucas gets someone else to direct the next Star Wars movies, he might possibly find someone as good as Kershner was, but he's got an even better chance of finding someone better than Lucas was.
Reported April 11, 1954 New York Times: "Pakistan and Afghanistan Said to Plan Confederation; PAKISTAN PLANS AFGHANISTAN TIE".
Only boring people are bored.
Republican fool:
Clinton's administration warned Bush/Cheney that the Qaeda were going to attack soon, because Clinton's administration was actively tracking and working against the Qaeda (despite a Republican Congress waving a blue dress to interfere with bombing Qaeda camps). But Bush/Cheney dismissed those warnings, and stopped protecting us from the Qaeda. Even during 2001 Clinton holdovers and the continuing intel showed a specific attack was about to be made, and Bush/Cheney ignored it. After the attack, Bush/Cheney were interested only in how it could be used to attack Iraq. Bush/Cheney counterattacked the Qaeda only enough to mobilize the military in Iraq. Bush/Cheney let Binladen escape, even when he was within reach. So there is some blame for Clinton's failure to destroy the Qaeda. But the amount of blame for Bush/Cheney is vastly larger, especially since during Clinton's efforts the Qaeda managed to attack only one warship and two embassies. Bush/Cheney's watch saw devastating attacks in the US, and even more devastating bad responses to them.
Clinton continuously bombed Iraq during his term, which is why Iraq did not have WMD when Bush/Cheney attacked them under those lies in 2001. UN inspectors reported correctly that there were no WMD. This is your biggest fool lie.
The beginnings of the bank deregulation were made law in 1998 by the Republican Congress, led by Phil Gramm (R-TX) who in 2008 was McCain's unrepentant economic advisor, while that Congress was pressuring the president with (baseless) impeachment. Clinton deserves some blame for signing that law anyway, but under his watch the deregulation did what was promised: grew the actual wealth of the economy across most economic bands. When Bush/Cheney started managing it, and advancing it, it went totally out of control. For 8 long years they could have changed the regulations or just managed it better, but instead they sent it even more crazy. So again, Clinton deserves some blame, but vastly more blame for Bush/Cheney.
You are the fool who has simplified it more than possible to say "both parties were equal", when Bush/Cheney were vastly more to blame, and entirely to blame for actually letting it happen.
You Republicans are so crazy, evil and stupid that you'll tell these impossible lies over and over, and continue believing them yourselves.
Dingbats aren't competent to run the House of Representatives.
You evidently don't know what a circular argument is. Nor are you able to even respond to the debunking of your fallacious "logic". But you sure do crash the stack on levels of projection.
Goodbye, Teabagger moonbat.
Bush/Cheney's Iraq invasion worked very successfully. It transferred $TRILLIONS into Bush/Cheney crony hands directly from war expenses. It got them reelected despite all they'd done to harm America (including the invasion itself). It drove up the price of oil to over $100 a barrel and in the neighborhood for years, gasoline to around $3-4 a gallon, which transferred more $TRILLIONS into Bush/Cheney crony hands. It demonstrated that the president can do whatever he wants, regardless of the Constitution or even a Congressional majority and successor president of the other party. It let the very rich Saudi who actually attacked us get away while we arbitrarily made war somewhere else, pleasing Saudis who are Bush/Cheney cronies, while hiding the concession to that Saudi's only specific demand: removing US troops from Saudi Arabia. It did a favor for the apocalyptic theocrats working to take over America as the Taliban took over Afghanistan, according to the script for their crusade, so they'd keep donating money, votes, volunteers and online comments. It strengthened Iran, giving credibility to Bush/Cheney cronies who want war with Iran (for all these same reasons).
WMD? Spreading democracy? Containing a dictator? That's all just propaganda. Bush/Cheney don't care about that, except that Americans believe it long enough for the scam to work. And it worked like nothing has ever worked before.
When foreigners thought the US didn't torture people, because it rarely did and punished the torturers when they were exposed, foreigners were more likely to surrender instead of fighting to the death, and to cooperate with US forces instead of cooperating with the US' enemies.
Now that people like you have converted torture into "just another weapon", we don't get that cooperation. Instead we get foreigners and even Americans recruited by the US' enemies because we are nothing more than torturers.
Torturers of many people who aren't guilty of anything except being easy to capture and to abuse.
Congratulations: you've destroyed one of the US' most effective defenses, established by centuries of restraint since George Washington. Along with our own knowledge that we're better than our enemies. The wars in which the US was better than that are the ones we've won. The ones in which the US wasn't better than that are the one's we've lost. Including the current Terror War that you people have been losing at every step.
Rather than talk tough and recommend cliche strategy books that have evidently taught you nothing, why don't you join the military and go to Afghanistan?
I have proof of my design predating this MS design that I linked to.
I didn't say I wanted a cut, but I am claiming I thought of it before MS published. However, if MS doesn't actually build one, MS deserves as much credit as I do, or less since I thought of it first (AFAICT). MS certainly doesn't deserve a patent any more than I do if it doesn't actually build one. Then they deserve a patent only on the specific implementation.
That huge Fox News and Murdoch's global sister corps is "the left wing mainstream media"?
You Republicans are so insane that you think people believe such a crude and childish lie.