I know nobody's perfect and I'm not trying to say that in my post, but I'm just saying that going round randomly declaring war is never going to solve anything, and that having the U.S. thinking that it is an invulnerable policing force is incredibly dangerous.
I missed the part where we had rallies and wore headbands that said "Kill Arabs". Could you provide a link?
Reread what I actually said. You just go and read a transcript of the last few speeches made by bush & friends (state of the union etc...) and count the number of times the word 'God' is mentioned.
Are we talking about about those peace loving mullahs, who rant about finding jews behind trees and rocks and killing them?
No, we're talking about the US. But since I forgot we have an 'it's us or them' attitude, let's just go and kill the bastards shall we? There can only be one state with this attitude by definition, and its our job to make it us.
Re:(OT)Re:Its the beginning of the end for MS
on
Windows 2003 Going Gold
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
and that Saddam Hussein is an innocent victim in all of this.
I'm not saying that. He's a nasty piece of work. I don't support him in any way. However, this is not the reason that the U.S. is invading. The plans for invading Iraq were written up many years ago, by the people who are currently in power, and not once in those plans does it talk about 'regime change', how saddam is oppressing his people, and not a word about terrorism.
it's an exaggeration for you to claim that Bush is a fascist
I agree, it is an exaggeration, and I didnt mean it entirely seriously.
The fascist is the one whose armed forces hide weapons in elementary schools and hospitals and have them attack the enemy while wearing civilian clothing and while pretending to surrender.
Can I remind you that this is what the U.S. did during the Vietnam war? They deliberately set up their defensive positions in and around villages with the same intention.
Saddam Hussein is personally responsible than the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than will be killed in this war.
So how responsible is the U.S. in all of this, seeing that they sold them the Chemical weapons? Furthur, it was Rumsfeld himself who did the bidding. How responsible was he? It's not as though he sold them to Saddam on the condition that he wouldn't use them. Enough nerve gas to kill 1m people is enough nerve gas to kill 1m people.
When photographs of George Bush line every street
Where does the distinction come between actual photos of the leader and little obnoxious U.S. flags stapled to everything in sight?
it's also not an act of fascism
I agree. Here, fascism is a misnomer, I just started talking about it because it was in the original sig. Let's just drop the f-word.
The fascist is the one who refuses to cooperate with a 12 year UN inspection program despite the fact that his failure of cooperation results in continued UN sanctions that cause widespread malnutrition and a horrifying infant mortality rate.
I'm confused here. Whose fault are you saying this is? The U.N.'s? Or Iraq's? It is Iraq's fault for not immediately agreeing to do whatever some random countries tell him to do otherwise they'll beat him up? If someone said this to the U.S.(not that anyone would ever be in the position to), the U.S. would definitely not conform, using it as an act of solidarity and defiance.
I've been discussing (arguing about:) this with friends for months now, and we've basically agreed it comes down to this.
You believe it is more dangerous to allow people like Saddam to continue ruling unchallenged.
However, I believe that it is more dangerous to allow the U.S. to believe it can continue getting away with this kind of stuff. Running around thinking it has the right to invade any country it likes, not conform to international law, hold prisioners in a legal black hole indefinitely, be immune to war crimes charges and hold its companies and citizens goals above anyone else's is not the sign of an advanced society. Meanwhile at home trying to silence dissenters from the academic community.
(OT)Re:Its the beginning of the end for MS
on
Windows 2003 Going Gold
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Notice that the anti-fascists are the first to cave when it comes to fighting a real Fascist?
I think maybe the 'anti-fascists' just disagree as to who is the fascist.
The fascist is the one who is (and has been for 50) going around starting wars to furthur its international political and business interests.
The fascist is the one who brainwashes its public into thinking that if they remotely disagree with the government they are siding with the evil enemy.
The fascist is the one whose most popular news networks show heavily biased information.
The fascist is the one who uses his religion to justify killing people, while condemning people for doing exactly the same.
The fascist is the one who condemns 'terrorism' but goes and does exactly that. (heard anything about this 'shock and awe' thing over the last few days? you dont think that's the same thing? go and look up the definition of terrorism.)
The fascist is the one whose government actively admits that they want their nation to be leader of the world, and that this action is just a stepping stone in that process.
I think I've got a bit off the subject now, and we're no longer technically talking about fascists, but my point remains.
The US is guilty of supporting him in the past, but at least we don't make such bizarre moral leaps now.
Really? To me it looks as though you are actively supporting Saudi Arabia right now, politically and monetarily. Have you any idea what goes on in there? During the Afghanistan attack you were working with Pakistan, another dictatorship. And now you are giving them more aid than ever.
In 10 years time the flavour of the month will be, I don't know, let's say, Saudi Arabia, and you will be saying 'Yeah, I know we supported them in the past, and we shouldn't have, but we're gonna sort it out now...'
A quitting smoker having that one last cigarette, eh?
Just one more.
...a corrupt Iraqi government that delights in killing and torturing its people.
Who gave them that nerve gas? Donald Rumsfeld. Now morally, what difference does it make if Saddam is going to gas 1m Iranians or 1m kurds? Did Rumsfeld sell him the gas so that he wouldn't use it? Come on. They both knew what it was going to be used for.
Now, I'm not protecting France and Germany, I agree in the respect that they are merely horse trading. That's what the UN is, and always has been, a puppet. That's why I wouldn't have been in favour of a war even with a second resolution.
I understand that it's their right to keep it closed, but I personally think it would be a good move as a company to release the entire source.
Why? Example code. I'm sure there are plenty of bits on the apple developer website, but what would be really useful is an entire application as a demonstration of a large project.
Besides, what would be the harm in releasing the code? It's not as though there are masses of industry secrets hidden in that code, is it?
I know what you mean, but funnily enough Slackware was what taught me Linux. If it weren't for Slackware, I would still be wandering round a plastic wrapped distro wondering why it didn't behave quite how it should. Not really having a clue what I was doing.
Yeah, I just realised I completely misinterpreted your post.
Jesus Christ never said...
Look, maybe you believe in J.C., but not everyone does, and he shouldn't be used as an excuse to go to or not go to war. People are criticizing the 'evildoers' for using their religion to justify killing people, but you've got to take a step back and try to see that using your religion to justify war (sorry, I'm not saying that you are....) is doing exactly the same thing. If you look at the whole thing in perspective, both sides seem to be acting just as stupidly as each other.
Our chance to "leave it alone" was lost to our civiliation when the first colonies were founded. We have to see this through to an end before we have the right to stop working to make every former colonial state into a real country with a stable government--and even then, we'll still have a reason to keep on helping out however we can.
Look, I'm in the UK, and I will be the first to admit that the cause of many (most?) of the imbalances and problems in the world are the fault of the British empire. However, I do not believe that the only way to correct these problems is to continue acting imperially.
Either that, or you yearn for the nostalgic days when the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan and would patrol the streets to beat women if they weren't veiled, or men if they didn't have beards of the correct length.
So all of a sudden the U.S. is the world's moral guardian.
What gives you the right to go and attack these countries just because they are your flavour of the month?!
What would you people be saying if these contries had an attitude like yours? You'd be condemning them for being evil, greedy and self serving!
Well guess who are the real religious fanatics who are trying to rule the planet with an iron fist!
...and then hold their hand as they struggle to sort out all the damage their ex-ruler did.
Are you kidding? Have you not heard anything about Afghanistan since they stopped being the 'evil enemy' who you morally 'saved'?
Since the war, there have been power struggles (inevitable), public bombings between factions, much of the country is controlled by random warlords, and some of the country is even back under control of the Taliban again!
But no, nobody seems to give a f*ck about Afghanistan anymore. Are CNN not covering it? Strange, that.
Just when will it stop? Who's next on your hitlist? Will you just go around killing everyone until everyone in the world bends over for the U.S.?
And that is why their goal is so clever. It's completely undefinable or measurable. Who's to say when the war on terror is won? When the people responsible for the WTC attacks are brought to justice? When every last terrorist is dead? When all potential terrorists are dead? Until we say so we can go and attack whoever the hell we want and have it supported by the public hidden under the banner of 'patriotism'. It's just such a brilliant plan!
Slashdot Mirror
I know nobody's perfect and I'm not trying to say that in my post, but I'm just saying that going round randomly declaring war is never going to solve anything, and that having the U.S. thinking that it is an invulnerable policing force is incredibly dangerous.
I missed the part where we had rallies and wore headbands that said "Kill Arabs". Could you provide a link?
Reread what I actually said.
You just go and read a transcript of the last few speeches made by bush & friends (state of the union etc...) and count the number of times the word 'God' is mentioned.
Are we talking about about those peace loving mullahs, who rant about finding jews behind trees and rocks and killing them?
No, we're talking about the US. But since I forgot we have an 'it's us or them' attitude, let's just go and kill the bastards shall we? There can only be one state with this attitude by definition, and its our job to make it us.
and that Saddam Hussein is an innocent victim in all of this.
I'm not saying that. He's a nasty piece of work. I don't support him in any way. However, this is not the reason that the U.S. is invading. The plans for invading Iraq were written up many years ago, by the people who are currently in power, and not once in those plans does it talk about 'regime change', how saddam is oppressing his people, and not a word about terrorism.
it's an exaggeration for you to claim that Bush is a fascist
I agree, it is an exaggeration, and I didnt mean it entirely seriously.
The fascist is the one whose armed forces hide weapons in elementary schools and hospitals and have them attack the enemy while wearing civilian clothing and while pretending to surrender.
Can I remind you that this is what the U.S. did during the Vietnam war? They deliberately set up their defensive positions in and around villages with the same intention.
Saddam Hussein is personally responsible than the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than will be killed in this war.
So how responsible is the U.S. in all of this, seeing that they sold them the Chemical weapons? Furthur, it was Rumsfeld himself who did the bidding. How responsible was he? It's not as though he sold them to Saddam on the condition that he wouldn't use them. Enough nerve gas to kill 1m people is enough nerve gas to kill 1m people.
When photographs of George Bush line every street
Where does the distinction come between actual photos of the leader and little obnoxious U.S. flags stapled to everything in sight?
it's also not an act of fascism
I agree. Here, fascism is a misnomer, I just started talking about it because it was in the original sig. Let's just drop the f-word.
The fascist is the one who refuses to cooperate with a 12 year UN inspection program despite the fact that his failure of cooperation results in continued UN sanctions that cause widespread malnutrition and a horrifying infant mortality rate.
I'm confused here. Whose fault are you saying this is? The U.N.'s? Or Iraq's? It is Iraq's fault for not immediately agreeing to do whatever some random countries tell him to do otherwise they'll beat him up? If someone said this to the U.S.(not that anyone would ever be in the position to), the U.S. would definitely not conform, using it as an act of solidarity and defiance.
I've been discussing (arguing about:) this with friends for months now, and we've basically agreed it comes down to this.
You believe it is more dangerous to allow people like Saddam to continue ruling unchallenged.
However, I believe that it is more dangerous to allow the U.S. to believe it can continue getting away with this kind of stuff. Running around thinking it has the right to invade any country it likes, not conform to international law, hold prisioners in a legal black hole indefinitely, be immune to war crimes charges and hold its companies and citizens goals above anyone else's is not the sign of an advanced society.
Meanwhile at home trying to silence dissenters from the academic community.
I think maybe the 'anti-fascists' just disagree as to who is the fascist.
The fascist is the one who is (and has been for 50) going around starting wars to furthur its international political and business interests.
The fascist is the one who brainwashes its public into thinking that if they remotely disagree with the government they are siding with the evil enemy.
The fascist is the one whose most popular news networks show heavily biased information.
The fascist is the one who uses his religion to justify killing people, while condemning people for doing exactly the same.
The fascist is the one who condemns 'terrorism' but goes and does exactly that. (heard anything about this 'shock and awe' thing over the last few days? you dont think that's the same thing? go and look up the definition of terrorism.)
The fascist is the one whose government actively admits that they want their nation to be leader of the world, and that this action is just a stepping stone in that process.
I think I've got a bit off the subject now, and we're no longer technically talking about fascists, but my point remains.
Really? To me it looks as though you are actively supporting Saudi Arabia right now, politically and monetarily. Have you any idea what goes on in there? During the Afghanistan attack you were working with Pakistan, another dictatorship. And now you are giving them more aid than ever.
In 10 years time the flavour of the month will be, I don't know, let's say, Saudi Arabia, and you will be saying 'Yeah, I know we supported them in the past, and we shouldn't have, but we're gonna sort it out now...'
A quitting smoker having that one last cigarette, eh?
Just one more.
Who gave them that nerve gas? Donald Rumsfeld. Now morally, what difference does it make if Saddam is going to gas 1m Iranians or 1m kurds? Did Rumsfeld sell him the gas so that he wouldn't use it? Come on. They both knew what it was going to be used for.
Now, I'm not protecting France and Germany, I agree in the respect that they are merely horse trading. That's what the UN is, and always has been, a puppet. That's why I wouldn't have been in favour of a war even with a second resolution.
And if you don't believe that the US is trying to take over the world, you really are quite naive.
Is this a tarball I see before me...
oh. errrr. hmm.
yeah.
Didn't think of that one.
I understand that it's their right to keep it closed, but I personally think it would be a good move as a company to release the entire source.
Why? Example code. I'm sure there are plenty of bits on the apple developer website, but what would be really useful is an entire application as a demonstration of a large project.
Besides, what would be the harm in releasing the code? It's not as though there are masses of industry secrets hidden in that code, is it?
Streaming!
Screw the HDD.
In my (albeit limited) experience the most depressing words ever to be uttered are 'Company Morale'.
And everything goes downhill from there.
(Beware, AtomFilms only use the Windows Media Player format now.)
No Problemo...
No, no!
It has been proven time and time again that mere containment of the regime is not enough! We need action!
I don't think they've really integrated Bluetooth and WiFi, they've just put the two into the same machine.
Slackware is a very nice distro.
I know what you mean, but funnily enough Slackware was what taught me Linux. If it weren't for Slackware, I would still be wandering round a plastic wrapped distro wondering why it didn't behave quite how it should. Not really having a clue what I was doing.
You can call me "the equalizer".
I'm going to start lots of posts to tell people of the wonders of shit eating.
And I'm gonna change my sig to read:
Score: -1, Pro-Shit-Eating
Karma: Crappy (see above)
And then I can claim that I'm not really a twat, it's just you people are all brainwashed into Anti-Shit-Eating thoughts.
You can call me "the equalizer".
Score: -1, Pro-Microsoft
Karma: Crappy (see above)
Oh, oh! That's why I get moderated down! It's because everyone's biased against me! Not because I behave like an idiot! It's all your fault, not mine!
I'm using a 350Mhz K6-2.
I've been using linux on it solidly since slackware 7.2. Now I use Gentoo.
I have never had any troubles with audio stuttering. I regularly do plenty of media stuff on it, and it does just fine.
I can play mp3s or oggs and do god knows what in the background and theres never a hitch. (unless said thing in the background really churns the hdd)
But that's just me. You're probably having bad luck.
(and I've got a soundcard with only semi existant driver support - an aureal vortex 2)
Oh, and where exactly did you hear that the Taliban had control of some of Afghanistan again? I haven't heard that one, and I didn't expect it.
Oh, yeah. I think it was on Newsnight a while ago. You might be able to find something about it on the news.bbc.co.uk
You're an idiot
Yeah, I just realised I completely misinterpreted your post.
Jesus Christ never said...
Look, maybe you believe in J.C., but not everyone does, and he shouldn't be used as an excuse to go to or not go to war. People are criticizing the 'evildoers' for using their religion to justify killing people, but you've got to take a step back and try to see that using your religion to justify war (sorry, I'm not saying that you are....) is doing exactly the same thing. If you look at the whole thing in perspective, both sides seem to be acting just as stupidly as each other.
Our chance to "leave it alone" was lost to our civiliation when the first colonies were founded. We have to see this through to an end before we have the right to stop working to make every former colonial state into a real country with a stable government--and even then, we'll still have a reason to keep on helping out however we can.
Look, I'm in the UK, and I will be the first to admit that the cause of many (most?) of the imbalances and problems in the world are the fault of the British empire.
However, I do not believe that the only way to correct these problems is to continue acting imperially.
Either that, or you yearn for the nostalgic days when the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan and would patrol the streets to beat women if they weren't veiled, or men if they didn't have beards of the correct length.
So all of a sudden the U.S. is the world's moral guardian.
Right. ABC news. A company supported by SUV ads and owned by large companies which have dubious relationships with the government.
They seem to be focusing on certain parts of Afghanistan only. Mazar-e Sharif and Kabul.
Much of it is irrelevant too.
What gives you the right to go and attack these countries just because they are your flavour of the month?!
What would you people be saying if these contries had an attitude like yours? You'd be condemning them for being evil, greedy and self serving!
Well guess who are the real religious fanatics who are trying to rule the planet with an iron fist!
Are you kidding? Have you not heard anything about Afghanistan since they stopped being the 'evil enemy' who you morally 'saved'?
Since the war, there have been power struggles (inevitable), public bombings between factions, much of the country is controlled by random warlords, and some of the country is even back under control of the Taliban again!
But no, nobody seems to give a f*ck about Afghanistan anymore. Are CNN not covering it? Strange, that.
Just when will it stop? Who's next on your hitlist? Will you just go around killing everyone until everyone in the world bends over for the U.S.?
Yeah I was just talking with a friend about this the other day. Pretty scary stuff.
...The U.S. is planning to sit around and watch.
No, no. They're far too busy trying to take control of this planet.
...we will stop at nothing to achieve our goal!
And that is why their goal is so clever. It's completely undefinable or measurable. Who's to say when the war on terror is won? When the people responsible for the WTC attacks are brought to justice? When every last terrorist is dead? When all potential terrorists are dead? Until we say so we can go and attack whoever the hell we want and have it supported by the public hidden under the banner of 'patriotism'. It's just such a brilliant plan!