...that "Condi", as some call her, is one of the most intelligent black woman in the USA?
I hope not. Although maybe it's an evil genius sort of intelligence. Every time she speaks you can hear the nukes falling in her vision of a "free" world.
So, intelligent or not, I reckon she's the most dangerous woman of any colour anywhere. Unelected leaders preaching about democracy, eh? Dontcha just love it?
Save the EU perhaps, the US is the world's largest and most lucrative single market for foreign goods. That is why we get our way when dealing with industrialized powers.
That's a two way street. The result of US economic policy for the last thirty or so years means that if, for example, China cut off all sales to you it would hurt you much more than them, at the moment. Give it twenty years and the pain will probably be equally distributed, as it is with the EU. The US has carried on an economic version of MAD for some time now and sometimes her politicians forget the "mutual" bit of that acronym.
You might notice that most of the countries that have the balls to flip us the bird are the ones that don't need to sell their stuff to us to keep themselves from collapsing.
They generally fall into two groups: those that have nothing worth buying or taking (eg, oil), and those who are supplying something important to lots of other countries (eg, oil). Iraq's problem was that it wasn't supplying anyone anymore so no one was going to really object to the US kicking the shit out of it. In fact some joined in, in hope that when the oil fields were carved up, the allies would get some of the crumbs, which they have.
Venezuela, on the other hand is actively supplying the world and the US with oil. They can get away with a certain degree of independance from the US because an invasion would cause other countries to make strong objections. Which is why so much effort is put into political parties, supporting coup attempt and assassinations attempts instead. They don't threaten the oil supply so much so there's no big problem for other oil consuming countries.
Mugabe, however, can stick two fingers up to the US, the UK, and anyone else because at the end of the day, although he's actually a worse dictator than Saddam and has killed more people, his country has squat worth having. So he knows no one is ever going to take him out the way Saddam was, no matter what his rhetoric or barbarity. Zimbabwe is "collapsing", but that is unconnected one way or the other with why they can ignore the US.
I suspect most of us would agree that given a choice between them or the likes of Mugabe or Britain's Prime Minister Wormtounge, our best interests lie with the former.
I don't think there's any real difference between them, and actually Rice is probably the most worring person in politics at the moment. Blair is just out for his pathetic "place in history" and doesn't much care about how he does it, Mugabee is a loonie but he's turning what little he has into a desert. Rice is mad as a hatstand too but she is effectivly second in command of the world's largest military force and, like Mugabee, she has no need to worry about getting voted in or out of her post.
As to this item, I think it's interesting that her explanation for why the status quo should remain is exactly the same as other countries' reasons for why it had to change: they depend on it. But, of course, the US runs the World Bank and the WTO so they can crush 90%+ of the world's countries without even starting up a single tank. So they get their way.
Meanwhile the new Iraq government is forced to sign their oil industry into slavery. Is anyone really foolish to believe that the US can be trusted with the Internet any more than some military-backed dictatorship?
Once is hardly "keeping" and actually I don't think that "sociopath" is really an insult since you say yourself that society is not important to you, so what's the problem?
with no reason,
There's plenty of reason to insult people that support ideas like the ones that you have outlined.
and try to say you know my game,
Nope, never said that.
because you can read my thoughts.
Nor that. Have you replied to the wrong post?
Obviously I was wasting my time, trying to debate
I think I would agree that your attempts to debate have failed.
someone who only wants to scream louder.
If by scream louder you mean "point out that you are saying that might makes right" then, yes, but actually I think you just don't have the slightest clue what you are saying or that it is anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and would lead to lynch mobs.
At least, that's what I do. But it is me who sets the rules. You set yours. And so on. Why? Because to me, I come first.
That's fine if you live away from other people or just with other sociopaths who all think alike. The problem is that you want me to think like you: to agree that the rights of the strong always trump those of the weak (in this case, children). I don't agree and my grandparents fought a war against those who felt that way (for example, what you said above is almost word for word what Hitler told a man who asked him for advice on running his local nazi party).
"I have no problem with saying that I want those I agree with enforced, and I want the right to request those I don't agree with put to a vote", you say: well that does not make any sense
If you can't understand the basic principles of democracy that would at least explain why you are saying the things you are saying, but it doesn't mean I, or anyone else, should have to make allowances for your ignorance or malice.
If I or a small group of people find them bad bad bad, we might want to take action against them, but I don't see any need for yet another state monopoly - the one on violence, in this instance.
Yes, it's always fun to imagine what you would do to bad people without all that tedious blather of a trial or evidence or other regulations. Until it's your neck in the noose because you happened to have the same name as some rapist. "Only the gulity have anything to fear" has been the watchword of the vigilante since the dawn of time and it's always been bullshit.
Besides, mentioning that some things only happen in my head is an insult.
Well, you put forward a chain of consequences without any explanation as to why they inevitably had to lead to each other so I assumed they were in your head. Perhaps you read them in some strange book, I don't know.
Nowhere in my post did I insult you.
I was careful not to insult you, despite it being both easy and deserved.
But some of it was done by the state, in the past. If you don't believe it, well, go and read up.
I know it has happened, but in post-revolution China it has never been policy and they have executed people, even officials, for doing it. Of course, in your world the people doing it would be free to do so as long as they could terrorise the local population into letting them.
The problem is that everything can be passed in the name of some Greater Good, in this case children's protection, but it soon turns out to be either ineffective, prone to abuse or tyrannical.
So paedophilia and gassing Jews is fine because stopping those things are ineffective and/or tyannical. Indeed, outlawing murder is ineffective since it still goes on.
Basically your argument is "there's no such thing as society or social responsibility; I should be allowed to do whatever I like when I like to whomever I like.", and I ain't buying it.
First it will be because the parents beat them while doing coke, then it will be because they abuse them psycologically, then because they don't provide adequate (adequate... to what?), and you see where this leads.
I see where it leads to in your head but in the real world there are such things as morals and ethics and agreed standards of behaviour and I have no problem with saying that I want those I agree with enforced, and I want the right to request those I don't agree with put to a vote. It's called democracy.
I don't need to remind you of soldiers drowning Chinese new-borns because their family already had one.
I think you do, actually. China has never officially done that, they "just" made the parents lives hell until they had an abortion or agreed to adoption on birth. In fact most infanticide in poor countries is done by parents themselves, which you would seem to support as their lifestyle choice.
I do not think it is in the interests of society (particularly such a sick one as America) to raise children with the idea that violence is synonymous with entertainment. I'm not terribly sure that it's a good idea with adults either but they have the faculties to decide that for themselves and vote accordingly (in several ways); children do not.
The sad fact is, too many parents don't take any responsibility for what their kids watch, read or play.
So, you're saying that because the kids' parents are crap then the kids should'nt be protected from scenes of "extreme violence"? Does this mean you think it's the kids' fault that the parents are irresponsible?
About as close as we were in 1960. AI has made no progress on "real AI" in all that time. Various tricks, such as pattern recognition and er... well, just pattern recognition have been developed but there's no sign that the techniques used have moved us any closer to making even a program that can engage in a conversation, let alone develop an imagination or any other trait of intelligence. Mind you, neither has the president of the US, so perhaps I'm just being picky.
Sure, he had an erroneous (libelous?) biography published on Wikipedia. Fucking change it. That is the entire point of Wikipedia
The fundamental problem with this argument is that he would then have to spend some time for the rest of his life checking that it wasn't reverted. Why should he have to do that?
Wikipedia's problem is that it's as easy (easier in fact) to unfix as it is to fix an article.
Make analogies that are about as fitting as the buttplug you currently have up your arse, and make a 2003-esque snide swipe at anything European as being Sociamalist or whatever.
It's a joke. Read all the Otto pieces, they're actually quite funny. If you realise they're meant to be,
5. I cant say "If thats bug is bothering you, fix it yourself!" to my boss or customers!
Then fix it yourself or pay someone to do it for you. The point of couse is that without the source you still can't tell your boss or customer to fix it and you can't have a go at it either, and neither can any consultant you bring in. So exactly what is your problem with having extra options?
They've never competed on quality. The law and lock-in are the only things they've got. The vast majority of MS programmers are third-rate hacks who have no pride in their work (otherwise they'd work for a company that takes pride in its work).
Beatles-Beatles, AKA Carl Fogle, is using/. to boost his search-engine jigging company. By hosting gerorge-harrison.info and then getting/. to link to it, and therefore lots of other sites to mirror that link, he is boosting that domain's search ranking (he's up to #10 on Google for "George Harrison"). He can then point his prospective clients to this success when pitching to them for their business.
Also, I just dont understand their position that unless the access to the materials is limited science will suffer. That sounds absolutly ridiculous to me
As a Brit I had always assumed that the "thanks" were being "given" to the Indians for showing them how to grow corn and bringing all that nice food so they didn't starve. Just shows.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope not. Although maybe it's an evil genius sort of intelligence. Every time she speaks you can hear the nukes falling in her vision of a "free" world.
So, intelligent or not, I reckon she's the most dangerous woman of any colour anywhere. Unelected leaders preaching about democracy, eh? Dontcha just love it?
TWW
That's a two way street. The result of US economic policy for the last thirty or so years means that if, for example, China cut off all sales to you it would hurt you much more than them, at the moment. Give it twenty years and the pain will probably be equally distributed, as it is with the EU. The US has carried on an economic version of MAD for some time now and sometimes her politicians forget the "mutual" bit of that acronym.
You might notice that most of the countries that have the balls to flip us the bird are the ones that don't need to sell their stuff to us to keep themselves from collapsing.
They generally fall into two groups: those that have nothing worth buying or taking (eg, oil), and those who are supplying something important to lots of other countries (eg, oil). Iraq's problem was that it wasn't supplying anyone anymore so no one was going to really object to the US kicking the shit out of it. In fact some joined in, in hope that when the oil fields were carved up, the allies would get some of the crumbs, which they have.
Venezuela, on the other hand is actively supplying the world and the US with oil. They can get away with a certain degree of independance from the US because an invasion would cause other countries to make strong objections. Which is why so much effort is put into political parties, supporting coup attempt and assassinations attempts instead. They don't threaten the oil supply so much so there's no big problem for other oil consuming countries.
Mugabe, however, can stick two fingers up to the US, the UK, and anyone else because at the end of the day, although he's actually a worse dictator than Saddam and has killed more people, his country has squat worth having. So he knows no one is ever going to take him out the way Saddam was, no matter what his rhetoric or barbarity. Zimbabwe is "collapsing", but that is unconnected one way or the other with why they can ignore the US.
TWW
I don't think there's any real difference between them, and actually Rice is probably the most worring person in politics at the moment. Blair is just out for his pathetic "place in history" and doesn't much care about how he does it, Mugabee is a loonie but he's turning what little he has into a desert. Rice is mad as a hatstand too but she is effectivly second in command of the world's largest military force and, like Mugabee, she has no need to worry about getting voted in or out of her post.
As to this item, I think it's interesting that her explanation for why the status quo should remain is exactly the same as other countries' reasons for why it had to change: they depend on it. But, of course, the US runs the World Bank and the WTO so they can crush 90%+ of the world's countries without even starting up a single tank. So they get their way.
Meanwhile the new Iraq government is forced to sign their oil industry into slavery. Is anyone really foolish to believe that the US can be trusted with the Internet any more than some military-backed dictatorship?
TWW
Once is hardly "keeping" and actually I don't think that "sociopath" is really an insult since you say yourself that society is not important to you, so what's the problem?
with no reason,
There's plenty of reason to insult people that support ideas like the ones that you have outlined.
and try to say you know my game,
Nope, never said that.
because you can read my thoughts.
Nor that. Have you replied to the wrong post?
Obviously I was wasting my time, trying to debate
I think I would agree that your attempts to debate have failed.
someone who only wants to scream louder.
If by scream louder you mean "point out that you are saying that might makes right" then, yes, but actually I think you just don't have the slightest clue what you are saying or that it is anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and would lead to lynch mobs.
My bad.
Yes.
TWW
That's fine if you live away from other people or just with other sociopaths who all think alike. The problem is that you want me to think like you: to agree that the rights of the strong always trump those of the weak (in this case, children). I don't agree and my grandparents fought a war against those who felt that way (for example, what you said above is almost word for word what Hitler told a man who asked him for advice on running his local nazi party).
"I have no problem with saying that I want those I agree with enforced, and I want the right to request those I don't agree with put to a vote", you say: well that does not make any sense
If you can't understand the basic principles of democracy that would at least explain why you are saying the things you are saying, but it doesn't mean I, or anyone else, should have to make allowances for your ignorance or malice.
If I or a small group of people find them bad bad bad, we might want to take action against them, but I don't see any need for yet another state monopoly - the one on violence, in this instance.
Yes, it's always fun to imagine what you would do to bad people without all that tedious blather of a trial or evidence or other regulations. Until it's your neck in the noose because you happened to have the same name as some rapist. "Only the gulity have anything to fear" has been the watchword of the vigilante since the dawn of time and it's always been bullshit.
Besides, mentioning that some things only happen in my head is an insult.
Well, you put forward a chain of consequences without any explanation as to why they inevitably had to lead to each other so I assumed they were in your head. Perhaps you read them in some strange book, I don't know.
Nowhere in my post did I insult you.
I was careful not to insult you, despite it being both easy and deserved.
But some of it was done by the state, in the past. If you don't believe it, well, go and read up.
I know it has happened, but in post-revolution China it has never been policy and they have executed people, even officials, for doing it. Of course, in your world the people doing it would be free to do so as long as they could terrorise the local population into letting them.
TWW
So paedophilia and gassing Jews is fine because stopping those things are ineffective and/or tyannical. Indeed, outlawing murder is ineffective since it still goes on.
Basically your argument is "there's no such thing as society or social responsibility; I should be allowed to do whatever I like when I like to whomever I like.", and I ain't buying it.
First it will be because the parents beat them while doing coke, then it will be because they abuse them psycologically, then because they don't provide adequate (adequate... to what?), and you see where this leads.
I see where it leads to in your head but in the real world there are such things as morals and ethics and agreed standards of behaviour and I have no problem with saying that I want those I agree with enforced, and I want the right to request those I don't agree with put to a vote. It's called democracy.
I don't need to remind you of soldiers drowning Chinese new-borns because their family already had one.
I think you do, actually. China has never officially done that, they "just" made the parents lives hell until they had an abortion or agreed to adoption on birth. In fact most infanticide in poor countries is done by parents themselves, which you would seem to support as their lifestyle choice.
I do not think it is in the interests of society (particularly such a sick one as America) to raise children with the idea that violence is synonymous with entertainment. I'm not terribly sure that it's a good idea with adults either but they have the faculties to decide that for themselves and vote accordingly (in several ways); children do not.
TWW
So, you're saying that because the kids' parents are crap then the kids should'nt be protected from scenes of "extreme violence"? Does this mean you think it's the kids' fault that the parents are irresponsible?
TWW
No, but it is unreadable childish twaddle.
TWW
I wasn't aware that ID people had approached science. Presumably they were turned down.
TWW
TWW
TWW
The fundamental problem with this argument is that he would then have to spend some time for the rest of his life checking that it wasn't reverted. Why should he have to do that?
Wikipedia's problem is that it's as easy (easier in fact) to unfix as it is to fix an article.
TWW
Or perhaps, you never know, it was a JOKE article? Huh? Surely the quote from his mother was a clue?!
TWW
It's a joke. Read all the Otto pieces, they're actually quite funny. If you realise they're meant to be,
TWW
Actually, some do.
5. I cant say "If thats bug is bothering you, fix it yourself!" to my boss or customers!
Then fix it yourself or pay someone to do it for you. The point of couse is that without the source you still can't tell your boss or customer to fix it and you can't have a go at it either, and neither can any consultant you bring in. So exactly what is your problem with having extra options?
TWW
TWW
Because that would make it easier to prove election-fraud. See? It's simple when you hear the answer.
TWW
TWW
TWW
I hope you realise it makes everything you say afterwards sound fake.
TWW
What is the formuthat for calculating black body temp as a function of rotational speed and distance from the sun?
TWW
Which I assume was the quadternary goal.
TWW
Probably should have read the article, then.
TWW
Because that's where the big bucks are. No one ever got rich by turning down their bribes.
TWW
TWW