well, that mess is very clever and specifically design to trap people inly a life time payment plan.
Don't blame the victim.
You are correct, she could turn this around pretty well for herself. A tell all to any rag would get her a fortune and position herself so that when Scientology goes for her she can point and say "See?".
Yeah, I'd like to see them take her marriage contract into a US court. The court would put them in jail.
On the front of the Co$ fragmenting, that's probably about normal. It's been around a few decades, it has a leadership with a rather rigid set of expectations and some people are starting to think independently (especially after reading stuff on the web) and splintering off.
I'm glad Katie dumped his ass and is doing her best to protect Suri from that cult.
Yeah, but I can only feel so much sympathy for someone who walked right into that mess anyway, and if you believe the papers, she married him for cache down and a salary, plus bonuses for offspring. Bet they'll throw every lawyer and dollar they have into the battle to discredit her and rip that child away from her. Her best defense would be to blog everything so people can see how it really works when the Co$ is on your case.
Call all your critics liars (and wife-beaters and child molesters if possible), send private detectives and Sea Org types to follow and harass them, sue them and anyone who supports them, cry religious persecution to the cops and govt officials, rinse, wash, repeat...
They remind me of a saying -- Their organization is so ridiculous that no matter how hard you tried you just couldn't make something like that up.
Can't say I've met any, but I have met some real wackos in my life and I suppose if people will believe in 5 billion years ago some aliens put a bunch of people in a volcano that didn't exist yet, to watch a movie and then blew them up, how are you ever going to get them to see any sense?
Meanwhile, it's Friday and me and my Thetans are going to go out and party. (c: Just a sec.. someone at the door
Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...
Yeah, I see the intent of this, but once again it flies in the face of American Business Interests so the government (or those parts owned by Corporate Masters) will have a vocal opposition to this.
Meanwhile, we've had almost non-stop wars, revolutions, invasions and a few instances of genocide since Nagasaki & Hiroshima
And in a history awash in world wars (protip: World War I was not the first world-encompassing war), we've had precisely zero global conflicts since.
You can cry up tiny sparks all you want - frankly, I agree that they're terrible events regardless of scale - but pointing to genocide in the ass end of nowhere and crying about nuclear deterrent not working makes no sense whatsoever.
Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo, while US and Russia argued about it, eventually NATO stepping in (largely with a push from the US)
Such an ugly event right in the middle of Europe, not some backwater of Africa.
Did you read it? No, just jump to your stupid post completed ignoring the fact that he mentions between smaller states and within those states.
He is correct in his assertion.
Yet nuclear powers did, via proxy. Also, smaller states have been at war with nuclear armed states. The risk of being labeled The Next Nation To Use Nukes To Kill People has had more, IMHO, to do with the reluctance to actually employ them. Nukes were considered for use in North Korea and North Vietnam, but saner minds prevented that.
He should see Fog of War with Robert McNamara, and quote:
"Rationality will not save us. I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today."
That's a heck of a movie. Frightening the prospect Cutis LeMay advocated just nuking the heck out of Cuba and being done with it, never mind the fallout blowing around the Caribbean, Gulf and ultimately Northern Hemisphere.
Or quite possibly after two world wars, people simply got so fed up with annihilating each other that they made an actual effort to avoid it for once?
Throttling the country, or region, where it all erupted had quite a bit to do with it. Cold War did lead to a long, uneasy peace, even if some poor innocent people had to pay for it with their lives being crush beneath a few soviet tanks.
Meanwhile, smaller and very bloody conflicts still were (and are) waged, ironically the invasion of Iraq, was on the assumption someone had nukes and was hiding them. Crazy man, crazy.
Kings, emperors, priests, dictators and all other types of power-seeking politicians, who drag a country to war seemingly over little more than a bad case of butthurt, maybe then we could have some sort of peace without the MAD.
What have you against Alfred E. Neuman?
Problem is, leaders often look perfectly sane, outright popular while they are running around building up support (or the people are so busy with trying not to starve they have little time or energy for politics), but once in position of power it goes to their heads and they get all messianic about themselves.
Keeping a regular rotation of leaders, particularly of alternating views, may seem inefficient, but it often proves to be a stablizing factor.
The world where all leaders were wise and caring, which was promised to me by 1970's television cartoons, has yet to materialize.
... we have an election where close races are open to challenges based on the inability to have a reliable recount.
Not only that, but polling is down to such a near exact science someone *cough* Florida in 2000 *cough* could finagle staffing and access to voting centers which prevent a large population of registered voters passing through to cast their votes, thus throttling the representation of their precinct and overall vote count. i.e. Select some very slow or officious people to staff it, make sure there are no where near enough polling booths, transportation or parking is highly problematic and when the doors shut at 8 PM you've stifled the vote, because you knew ahead of time this area would go against your party.
The powers that be have both of their choices lined up. It's a win-win for them and a lose-lose for us.
Putting rhetoric aside, can anyone tell me what real policy differences there are? From what I've seen it's a matter of degree not direction.
You mean the parties. You can always vote for non-Democrat non-Republican choices. Lots of smaller parties abound and every now and then a third party rises (usually to vanish again within a few years due to infighting.)
Personally I like the idea of run-off elections. Stop the parties giving us only one choice, each, because (as we can see with Mitt) between locking up the nomination and election day they could falter, utter something completely at odds with their party and suddenly look far less worthwhile. Let everyone run, let's take the best 2 or 3 and have a run-off. That fixes this "grooming" junk.
E-voting cannot be transparent and therefor cannot be acceptable.
Let's consider something else, which is supposed to be secure and is still in some kind of dark ages at the present - the credit card.
Mine was recently charged for a videogame download, likely the details obtained when I gave them over the phone for a hotel reservation, the download was sent to an email address not registered with my card. Meanwhile, friends who have had their cars broken into find there are a few gas stations which still don't ask about pin numbers or zip codes when a card is swiped, let alone have cameras on site, so thieves call all their friends who flashmob the filling station and top off their tanks before throwing the card away.
With billions of dollars of charges, lost to thievery on cards, why are we expecting voting could be secure? Clearly sloppiness to a very high dollar cost isn't important, why should you expect extreme care for voting?
I chose it because I could see the sources, update as I see fit, build as I see fit and be able to do a build without clobbering all my installed software.
So why would I suddenly want to chose a closed source Microsoft solution? This is the company, whose practices since 1995 are the major reason why we have malware, viruses and worms.
Such great vision from the start, nobody would even think to remotely try to control your computer, right?
As a mainframe admin I was charged with keeping sneaky bastages out all the time, why didn't Microsoft believe this sort of thing could happen on a PC? To this day they still have gaping holes in security and their transparency is a thing of fantasy.
and he doesn't realise that any program on any computer on the internet could pretend to be on android? I don't know much about mail but I would guess the"'Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android' signature" would have been set by the client
Engineer perhaps doesn't mean so much at Microsoft.
I would rather the government built and ran them. I trust government workers to stick to engineering spec and scientific guideline more then a company where a CEO will make a larger bonus by putting off storage costs another year.
The government who gives the job to pretty much the cheapest bid?
There was a time when the Government handed out contracts and amazing things were done and done well.
It's only recently, in an era where whistleblowers can more easily rat out bad materials, practices or cheating the contract, where companies seem most interested in seeing what they can get away with. Silly, no?
As much as some hate to admit this, it's true. Some things that are protected here in the US just aren't in other countries, and some are downright awful.
Yeah, the US is falling so far behind.. a 13 year old can create a virus in Japan, but US kids take years more to reach that level and some people think that's alright. Time for another big Education push...
We'll make a Higgs Boson gun that shoots atoms full of mass. Then we'll use it to make planes fall out of the sky, cause submarines to sink until they implode, and make people collapse under their own weight.
Just launch cheeseburgers and frenchfries at them.
Slashdot Mirror
well, that mess is very clever and specifically design to trap people inly a life time payment plan.
Don't blame the victim.
You are correct, she could turn this around pretty well for herself.
A tell all to any rag would get her a fortune and position herself so that when Scientology goes for her she can point and say "See?".
Yeah, I'd like to see them take her marriage contract into a US court. The court would put them in jail.
On the front of the Co$ fragmenting, that's probably about normal. It's been around a few decades, it has a leadership with a rather rigid set of expectations and some people are starting to think independently (especially after reading stuff on the web) and splintering off.
Well, there goes Tom's $1.00 donation to UNICEF this Halloween ...
Talk about a mouse messin' with a gorilla! Go get 'em, boys!
The beauty of this is you only need one jpeg image of the mask, rather than buying them by the container ship.
Name one other "religion" that charges you to read the "bible" and forbids you to tell anyone what they teach under pain of law suite.
While they may harass and sue you, they don't often go with the "Kill the Infidels" if you say something nasty about their Ronnie or Tommy.
I'm glad Katie dumped his ass and is doing her best to protect Suri from that cult.
Yeah, but I can only feel so much sympathy for someone who walked right into that mess anyway, and if you believe the papers, she married him for cache down and a salary, plus bonuses for offspring. Bet they'll throw every lawyer and dollar they have into the battle to discredit her and rip that child away from her. Her best defense would be to blog everything so people can see how it really works when the Co$ is on your case.
Call all your critics liars (and wife-beaters and child molesters if possible), send private detectives and Sea Org types to follow and harass them, sue them and anyone who supports them, cry religious persecution to the cops and govt officials, rinse, wash, repeat...
Read all about it, and more.
They remind me of a saying -- Their organization is so ridiculous that no matter how hard you tried you just couldn't make something like that up.
Can't say I've met any, but I have met some real wackos in my life and I suppose if people will believe in 5 billion years ago some aliens put a bunch of people in a volcano that didn't exist yet, to watch a movie and then blew them up, how are you ever going to get them to see any sense?
Meanwhile, it's Friday and me and my Thetans are going to go out and party. (c: Just a sec .. someone at the door
NO CARRIER
When you cut support you begin to cut your own throat.
Well, that oughta do it. Thanks guys. Considering they can't find a way to stop Assad from using tanks on his own people, I wouldn't hold my breath that the UN is going to come to your aid when Comcast decides to throttle your netflix stream...
Yeah, I see the intent of this, but once again it flies in the face of American Business Interests so the government (or those parts owned by Corporate Masters) will have a vocal opposition to this.
Meanwhile, we've had almost non-stop wars, revolutions, invasions and a few instances of genocide since Nagasaki & Hiroshima
And in a history awash in world wars (protip: World War I was not the first world-encompassing war), we've had precisely zero global conflicts since.
You can cry up tiny sparks all you want - frankly, I agree that they're terrible events regardless of scale - but pointing to genocide in the ass end of nowhere and crying about nuclear deterrent not working makes no sense whatsoever.
Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo, while US and Russia argued about it, eventually NATO stepping in (largely with a push from the US)
Such an ugly event right in the middle of Europe, not some backwater of Africa.
Did you read it? No, just jump to your stupid post completed ignoring the fact that he mentions between smaller states and within those states.
He is correct in his assertion.
Yet nuclear powers did, via proxy. Also, smaller states have been at war with nuclear armed states. The risk of being labeled The Next Nation To Use Nukes To Kill People has had more, IMHO, to do with the reluctance to actually employ them. Nukes were considered for use in North Korea and North Vietnam, but saner minds prevented that.
He should see Fog of War with Robert McNamara, and quote:
"Rationality will not save us. I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today."
That's a heck of a movie. Frightening the prospect Cutis LeMay advocated just nuking the heck out of Cuba and being done with it, never mind the fallout blowing around the Caribbean, Gulf and ultimately Northern Hemisphere.
Or quite possibly after two world wars, people simply got so fed up with annihilating each other that they made an actual effort to avoid it for once?
Throttling the country, or region, where it all erupted had quite a bit to do with it. Cold War did lead to a long, uneasy peace, even if some poor innocent people had to pay for it with their lives being crush beneath a few soviet tanks.
Meanwhile, smaller and very bloody conflicts still were (and are) waged, ironically the invasion of Iraq, was on the assumption someone had nukes and was hiding them. Crazy man, crazy.
Kings, emperors, priests, dictators and all other types of power-seeking politicians, who drag a country to war seemingly over little more than a bad case of butthurt, maybe then we could have some sort of peace without the MAD.
What have you against Alfred E. Neuman?
Problem is, leaders often look perfectly sane, outright popular while they are running around building up support (or the people are so busy with trying not to starve they have little time or energy for politics), but once in position of power it goes to their heads and they get all messianic about themselves.
Keeping a regular rotation of leaders, particularly of alternating views, may seem inefficient, but it often proves to be a stablizing factor.
The world where all leaders were wise and caring, which was promised to me by 1970's television cartoons, has yet to materialize.
His assumption requires that all the wielders of nuclear weapons are sane.
Even when they are, war still finds a way.
Preventing large scale conflict between Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Western Europe, United States.
Meanwhile, we've had almost non-stop wars, revolutions, invasions and a few instances of genocide since Nagasaki & Hiroshima
I don't think it's working...
Now sharks with lasers, that might do the trick...
... we have an election where close races are open to challenges based on the inability to have a reliable recount.
Not only that, but polling is down to such a near exact science someone *cough* Florida in 2000 *cough* could finagle staffing and access to voting centers which prevent a large population of registered voters passing through to cast their votes, thus throttling the representation of their precinct and overall vote count. i.e. Select some very slow or officious people to staff it, make sure there are no where near enough polling booths, transportation or parking is highly problematic and when the doors shut at 8 PM you've stifled the vote, because you knew ahead of time this area would go against your party.
The powers that be have both of their choices lined up. It's a win-win for them and a lose-lose for us.
Putting rhetoric aside, can anyone tell me what real policy differences there are? From what I've seen it's a matter of degree not direction.
You mean the parties. You can always vote for non-Democrat non-Republican choices. Lots of smaller parties abound and every now and then a third party rises (usually to vanish again within a few years due to infighting.)
Personally I like the idea of run-off elections. Stop the parties giving us only one choice, each, because (as we can see with Mitt) between locking up the nomination and election day they could falter, utter something completely at odds with their party and suddenly look far less worthwhile. Let everyone run, let's take the best 2 or 3 and have a run-off. That fixes this "grooming" junk.
E-voting cannot be transparent and therefor cannot be acceptable.
Let's consider something else, which is supposed to be secure and is still in some kind of dark ages at the present - the credit card.
Mine was recently charged for a videogame download, likely the details obtained when I gave them over the phone for a hotel reservation, the download was sent to an email address not registered with my card. Meanwhile, friends who have had their cars broken into find there are a few gas stations which still don't ask about pin numbers or zip codes when a card is swiped, let alone have cameras on site, so thieves call all their friends who flashmob the filling station and top off their tanks before throwing the card away.
With billions of dollars of charges, lost to thievery on cards, why are we expecting voting could be secure? Clearly sloppiness to a very high dollar cost isn't important, why should you expect extreme care for voting?
In so much as it is the candidate my voting machine company has coded into the ballot software.
Well, that was about the same threat as the Diebold chief.
I chose it because I could see the sources, update as I see fit, build as I see fit and be able to do a build without clobbering all my installed software.
So why would I suddenly want to chose a closed source Microsoft solution? This is the company, whose practices since 1995 are the major reason why we have malware, viruses and worms.
Such great vision from the start, nobody would even think to remotely try to control your computer, right?
As a mainframe admin I was charged with keeping sneaky bastages out all the time, why didn't Microsoft believe this sort of thing could happen on a PC? To this day they still have gaping holes in security and their transparency is a thing of fantasy.
and he doesn't realise that any program on any computer on the internet could pretend to be on android? I don't know much about mail but I would guess the"'Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android' signature" would have been set by the client
Engineer perhaps doesn't mean so much at Microsoft.
Posted from my AndBot
I would rather the government built and ran them. I trust government workers to stick to engineering spec and scientific guideline more then a company where a CEO will make a larger bonus by putting off storage costs another year.
The government who gives the job to pretty much the cheapest bid?
There was a time when the Government handed out contracts and amazing things were done and done well.
It's only recently, in an era where whistleblowers can more easily rat out bad materials, practices or cheating the contract, where companies seem most interested in seeing what they can get away with. Silly, no?
Cooties !
Howzabout Mt. Foojies?
As much as some hate to admit this, it's true. Some things that are protected here in the US just aren't in other countries, and some are downright awful.
Yeah, the US is falling so far behind .. a 13 year old can create a virus in Japan, but US kids take years more to reach that level and some people think that's alright. Time for another big Education push ...
Get the Etch-A-Sketches out and start over
We'll make a Higgs Boson gun that shoots atoms full of mass. Then we'll use it to make planes fall out of the sky, cause submarines to sink until they implode, and make people collapse under their own weight.
Just launch cheeseburgers and frenchfries at them.