Re:Red Cross Needs Tech Help
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
So if I don't donate five million dollars, it's worthless?
Sorry, but I don't make even $50k a year on my own, the $100 I donated on Amazon will have to do.
I stand by my claim though, that Bill does squat, when seen as a percentage of his income. Not only that, but he donates useless shit and expects praise for it.
Well fuck him, and fuck morons like you too, if you're too god damned stupid to see how he's pulling your strings.
Would it make me a "good person" if I donated $2000 worth of old copies of OS/2? I've got the licenses for them, salvaged from my last company.
Wow, I'd be just like Bill, donating a pile of steaming shit and expecting people to suck me off for it.
God, I've never talked to someone as utterly incapable of detecting PR bullshit as you.
When Bill gives 5% of his month's income, and donates blood, then I'll be impressed. Until then, he's a cheapskate who's just doing it for publicity, and with idiots falling for it, I can see it works.
Well, first, I should clarify... The autistic child may be highly functioning according to some, but this just means he's not a risk to himself or others. He's very unschooled, I don't know if he can read.
By mildly, I was assuming that autism was usually so bad that you're essentially a vegetable. If I was wrong, I'm sorry.
Now, to the bulk of the post.
Right, I can't say that my accomplishments are more important than yours, I can't say that my hobbies are more worthwhile, even if yours might seem that way to me personally. (Not to say that they do.)
I also don't think I'm happied, sitting down, doing what I enjoy, than you are, sitting down, doing what you enjoy.
Happy moment, for happy moment, I think we're equal.
But I question the ability of some to seek out those happy moments. This boy I'm talking about likes to play certain simple games, but these all require another person. When his caretaker gets tired of playing the game, he's unable to entertain himself.
All else being equal, I think he'd be happier without autism.
Being that I am unwilling to end someone's life because they don't agree with me (MS supporters would be first, by a mile, if I did) I wouldn't threaten you or anyone else, no matter how deficient in any area you appeared (to me) to be.
But I would take steps to make sure my children, to the best of my ability, remained as healthy as possible. This includes preventing them from smoking, drinking bleach, having a lobotomy, or whatever.
I would also try to keep them healthy proactively, but aborting one I feared would be handicapped. Again, all else being equal, I think they'd be happier without a disability.
btw, you should read _Distress_ (or DistressED, I'm not sure) by Greg Egan. He's a cool author who's written neat stuff, but specifically, this book talks about people choosing to be autistic, and the reasons behind it.
It's a great look at why we feel the need to defend the way we are as being "the way."
OT: I may go away for the weekend (starting tonight), if you wish to talk to me, please email me as well as posting.
I wouldn't say that the life of one person is less valuable than that of another...
However, all else being equal, I'd choose the zygote that was the least likely to cause my child to be born with Downs, or Autistic, etc.
Once you have them, I think you're responsible for looking after them, children don't come with a money-back guarantee.
This all comes down to abortion. I don't feel it's murder, if done soon enough. (How soon is soon enough is essentially unanswerable, though I feel the first trimester is safe.)
I'd fight to prevent my child from being exposed to poison which would cause brain damage, why is it unreasonable to try to ensure a healthy child in other ways?
Moreover, MS is up to their same tricks, giving away software licenses and claiming the full retail value as a donation.
It's cheap. It's deceitful, and IMHO the IRS should be banging away at the door.
If we're cynical about MS the rest of the time, why can't we be cynical now? Bill has proven time and again that he's willing to lie to a judge and break the law just to make a buck, why should we assume all of a sudden that he's a great humanitarian?
Oh, I forgot... his company (not even Bill himself) donated $5m... And they make how many billion per year? It's a pathetic gimick, like tipping $.05 in a restaurant, to make a statement.
What wonderful human beings. I want, desperately, to carry Bill's child, because he is such a beacon to the world. [/sarcasm]
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN. WORST FLAMEBAIT ON /.
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
You know, if you can't fight my opinions with words, you shouldn't appeal to moderators. It's *not* flamebait, I'm utterly serious.
I *do* believe you are brainwashing your children.
If you tell them to do certain things to fit into society, fine. If you tell them that YOU believe you shouldn't hurt someone, fine.
But if you tell them "god says", or use religion as the reason for what you're teaching them, you are brainwashing them. You're appealing to a higher power who isn't available to question.
How would you feel if we were having an argument about something, the value of pi for instance, and I said it was "3.5", and when asked for proof, told that "Bob told me, he's a phd in math!"
That's what you're doing to your children, every time you teach them something as coming from god, you are removing their right to question it and discover the truth on their own.
Now, you sound like a good person, you probably teach them many fine things, but that doesn't change the fact that your methods are brainwashing.
A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
If you truly love your children, you'll have to let them lead their own lives, and that means decided how to act, and importantly, why.
I'm not advocating preventing people from being religious. Hell, I think drugs should be legalized - it's your life to do with as you will...
I *am* in favour of preventing people from teaching religion to children, the same as I'm against giving them drugs. They're too young to decide important life decisions.
It's a crime to deny your child medical attention because of religious beliefs. I'd make it a crime to teach them your religion, the brainwashing could lead to similarly harmful choices later.
The fact that I was modded up doesn't prove anything, except that I stated my point well and many people believe I have a valid point.
Re:The views of a Muslim in NY
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Your arguments make no sense.
You're unwilling to cure one problem, just because others exist?
Yes, Stalin purged millions. We realize this and will take steps against people like him in the future.
"Moron"
Shithead.
There, feel better?
"Read the First Amendment."
Don't need to.
1) I'm not from the USA
2) The existance of a law does not indicate the correctness of that law
3) I'm not saying people shouldn't BE religious, just that they shouldn't brainwash others (mainly children) to be religious.
btw, "How the fuck that idiocy got modded up to +5" is by being incredibly insightful. Hey, 4/5 moderators think I'm a genius, it MUST be true.
Re: Religion is the direct enemy
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
You can't cut me down for failing to logical and then proceed to beat the fallacy horse until it dies.
The least logical thing you said was "you can't disprove the existance of god, can you?"
I don't need to. All I need to do is point to two or more mutually exclusive religions, that alone is proof that one or more are wrong.
Now, as further evidence in this line, I doubt you can state your belief in god as a testable theory, thus there's nothing to disprove.
Further, you can't prove a negative, calls for someone to do this are empty. Instead, you proceed by disproving the positive form. I can't prove there ISN'T a god, because your definition will change to suit the moment. I can attack your proof that the is a god, and in the absence of proof, I think it's fairly obvious which is correct. Either your god, alone of all gods, exists, or we could show that at most one religion could be true, and with the many inconsistencies in them all, it's likely that instead of 99% of them being false, it's more likely that 100% are false.
If you want to see a list of these inconsistencies, go to google and search for "bible inconsistencies" or something similar. There are hundreds of sites which address this.
Having shown strong cause to disbelieve the existance of a god, I think it falls upon you to present a theory for and prove the existance of god. The burden of proof is yours, because you're asking me to accept the existance of something for which there is no direct evidence. (No, the bible doesn't count.)
"coercion was not been part of the process that led me to be a believer."
Not that you see. That's the whole idea with brainwashing. If you start with a child, telling them something, discouraging them from thinking analytically about it, and from questioning it, of course they're going to believe it. Now, if you have been similarly raised, you're going to believe this yourself, so you will likely see it as a loving duty to the child. The fact that you do this kindly doesn't change the fact that it's mental manipulation.
Did you parents raise you in a religious vacumm, to decide upon your 18th birthday, the truth behind god? If so, what proof (tangible) swayed you to make the decision?
"Does it occur to you that people may have an internally and externally consistent beliefs,"
No. I've read enough of the bible to know otherwise, remember, all it takes is one inconsistency to disprove that it was directly passed down as the word of god.
I also know enough religious people to spot inconsistent behaviour, which goes to suggest that this is endemic.
"many people (myself included) do not believe God to be petulant in any way shape or form,"
This would be the same god who commanded people to be stoned, that order babies to be killed, etc? The same one who smote the enemies of the "chosen" for the sole crime of not believing in him? You know, I think your god is throwing a tantrum.
"Since our country has laws based on a the U.S. Constitution,"
I'll mention here that I'm Canadian, just to keep things clear, but I'll accept that comment as you intended it.
"you are free to disbelieve, but I am also free to believe , and practice my beliefs so long as they remain within the constraints of societal law."
And until "recently" US citizens were allowed to own slaves. The mere existance of a law allowing something does not make it a good choice to follow, nor does it say anything about the morality or correctness of that action.
"Most 'cults' do not remain within those constraints."
By your definitions. To me, they seem as arbitrary as my definitions much seem to you.
``A cult is a religion with no political power.'' - Tom Wolfe
"You just committed another logical fallacy by excluding the possibility that rational people can also be religious, another logical fallacy, like saying 'the sky is blue, my eyes are blue, therefore anyone whose eye's aren't blue can't possibly see the sky...'"
Sigh. No, I didn't commit a falacy here.
I attempted to show that belief in religion was directly contrary to observed reality. I then stated that religious people could not be rational.
Being that rational behaviour is defined as that you rationalize, or reason out, belief in something unproven isn't rational. Unless you have proof of god (which I'd love to hear) you can't be rational.
Or, to be precise, you are being irrational in one area, it goes to show that you have a history of irrational behaviour. While in some areas you may act rationally, as a whole, you are not.
"It is just as much brainwashing and dishonest indoctrination to to insist that our educational systems teach that atheism"
Irrelevant. I'm not saying our schools should teach athiesm. If I were to say what our schools should do, it would be that they should NOT teach religion. Simply not indoctrinating children with false teaching will allow them to choose on their own, and I see no reason why they would feel compelled to create a god to believe in. This may be equivalent to teaching them athiesm, but it allows them to reach the conclusions on their own and thus isn't brainwashing.
"I can easily be proven to be a useful member of society, even though I believe in God."
You freely admit you believe in something unprovable like a god, and you want me to believe you're rational and free-thinking? Sorry, I'll go for the person who doesn't believe what a church tells him.
While you may not be detrimental to society, what assurance do I have that your god, which I beleive to be a delusion, won't start telling you to kill... After all, most suicide bombers do so thinking they'll reach spiritual salvation for their acts, and their holy beliefs look much like yours. (Assuming you're christian, but likely true regardless.)
"I wonder what you would say if you were trapped in the WTC explosions and I was the only person who could help you get down the stairs and told you that it was my 'God-given duty to help you get out of the building alive.' Would you so glibly accuse me of retreating into fantasy then?"
No. I'd wait until we were out of the building. But that's irrelevant.
You exist, your actions influence my world, thus I can benefit from taking advantage of certain ones. This doesn't mean that I accept your reasons for performing these actions as valid, merely that I can see what you are doing and act upon it.
"True beliefs don't allow a retreat-- they obligate the owner of those beliefs to act."
That's the problem. If you truly believe your god gave you a mission, you'll do it. That's why religious people are a risk to those around them.
"So if you don't mind, I'll try to become a better person based on my beliefs,"
I don't mind your goals of self-betterment, but I do think your beliefs will get in the way. Until you know YOU, without the brainwashing, you'll never know your true potential.
"All I can suggest is that if you want to preach atheism, you at least learn to do a better, more logical job of it."
I wasn't preaching athiesm. For one, it's not a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from a set of religious beliefs.
Second, I didn't try to teach you that your beliefs were wrong (initially, though I did point out flaws this time.) Instead, I simply took it as being self-evident that you were wrong, and spoke to the other non-religious people, saying that being as most of our problem-people are religious, and it is a delusion, we might want to keep a better eye on you, or possibly regulate your brainwashing of future generations.
I'd venture a guess that you really don't understand what a falacy is, that you've simply been told "To counter the argument that X, say Y". You misidentified what I was saying as falacious, because your zeal to disprove my views got in your way. If you wish to continue the debate, please prove the existance of god, in such a manner as to be acceptible to a non-believer. This is the crux of the issue, if you can't prove the basis of your belief, you're not being rational.
My fiance's family adopted a child who is autistic, mildly. He's been WAY more work than they had intended, and now it's clear he'll never be able to leave home, never be able to do anything without someone walking him slowly through it.
Sure, he has happy days. There are some things he enjoys doing, but overall, he's the least happy of the children, by FAR.
Combine this with someone a bit less retarded, who can tell how far behind everyone else they are, and I think that they'd be profoundly unhappy, despite happy instances in their life.
And with the same advice, you'd have aborted hundreds of mentally or physically retarded babies.
This gets even better now, because we're much closer to being able to tell if the baby has a problem, instead of just playing the odds.
If geniuses were always retarded in other ways, aborting a retarded baby would risk our only supply of geniuses, but there are plenty of geniuses who don't have any great physical or mental flaws.
I stand by my position of aborting babies that tests show will be retarded.
Well, alzheimers can do this. A friend's grandfather suffered from this for years before he died. He knew everything he used to be able to do, he used to remember the details, and before his death he barely remembered the outline. For instance, he knew he'd been in the army, but not the details of his service.
He had met his wife while in the army, and later that whole period of his life was gone.
Sure, ignorance is bliss. Now, I'm sure you'll consent to your lobotomy, right? After all, some patients go on to very happy lives, even if they're a bit simple...
I'm sure that non-retarded people live much more fulfilling lives, so while someone with a mental problem may be happy, they'd have been more independant, and likely much happier, if they were healthy.
For instance, my relationship with my fiance is the best thing that's happened to me, I wouldn't be independant enough to support myself, let alone able to find a lover and have a meaningful relationship.
Not to mention, don't the parents ever want the kid to move out? Wouldn't the kid be unhappy when his parents die and he has to move to a home? And wouldn't he, to the degree he'd be able, feel upset about being such a burden?
I've made MY decision. I've asked family to withdraw life-support if I'm ever badly brain-damaged. The most painful thing for me would be to go through life, remembering everything I could have been. Can you imagine knowing you had once been able to program, but now not been able to comprehend a mouse, or read even simple books?
Well, considering that many "experts" disagree with your "expert", I don't take his not agreeing with me as proof that I'm wrong.
The reason I said 25th floor, is that it's the practical maximum you can get outside help to fight a fire at, it's approaching 80m up, and firefighting is severely hampered.
Now, as to the lower floors being stronger...
The jet impact on building 2 took out all the supports in its path, it likely would have done the same to even stronger supports.
Now, the building will be stronger lower down, but it will also have more weight about the damaged area, and critically important, more of the building is swaying back and forth above it.
I think that, if the fire was unchecked, the lower the crash, the sooner the collapse, and the more deaths. Now, the lower the crash, the easier the firefighting, but I don't think the 60th floor was required for that.
Re:Red Cross Needs Tech Help
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
If MS didn't give the licenses away, the charities would buy either other OSes, or used copies of Windows. They certainly wouldn't pay $200 for an OS when the average cost of their hardware is likely that much.
And actually, some charities DO use Linux. I doubt they know it, but I've donated computers to a charity, configured to load into KDE, with nothing but Mozilla and a couple of low-end apps available. That's all they wanted, public internet terminals, that's what they got.
Indeed, they got the only set of systems that they didn't have to have administered. The windows systems they have are so loose that they get toasted every week or so and need to be reinstalled (Ghosted, now that I showed them how) but the Linux computers don't need that.
Besides, if MS hadn't used their predatory practices for so long, there might actually be commercial competition.
Your whole argument is like forgiving someone who killed his parents, because he's an orphan.
Microsoft supporters are either stock-holders (directly or through mutual funds) or "the average joe" who knows nothing about the situation and simply distrusts the government. (Or, as has come out, Microsoft employees faking grass-roots support through faked mailings and through postings on sites like Slashdot, ZD, etc.)
Re:Red Cross Needs Tech Help
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Is that what it takes to get them to donate something that isn't licenses? Wow. Just kill ten thousand people and Microsoft will cough up a couple of dollars.
I wouldn't care that they don't donate much, except that they make such a big deal about it to get praised, and they get a massive tax write-off.
If MS was playing fair, they'd have claimed their cost on the licenses, not the absolute highest retail sales price.
Re:Red Cross Needs Tech Help
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
I give a rats ass what they gave. They claim to be such a charitable organization and do SWEET FUCK ALL to actually help people. Oh, how nice. I'm supposed to be happy that they gave away licenses to a company who couldn't have bought them. Cost to MS, $0, lost sales, $0. Yet they claim millions in tax relief.
And they take sales from companies who sell products that the charities could afford.
MS is slime, by slime, and evidently, supported by slime.
Wow, so MS followed the crowd and donated cash THIS TIME, but only to match what other companies are doing.
I wouldn't care if they didn't donate at all, I care that they make such a half-asses attempt and then expect to be praised.
Preliminary reports are that NOBODY escaped from above the floors the planes hit, that means (110 - 60) + (110 - 90) = 70 floors full of people that were trapped. Hitting lower, say the 25th floor, would have shut the floors off in the same way, and would have been too high for anyone to safely jump from.
The "experts" I've heard have said that the buildings very likely (95%) would have withstood the original crash and could possibly have been repaired. What they ALL agree on is that the main (some say the sole) cause of the collapse is the fire. If you look at the photos of building 1, there's a hole through the corner, on two adjoining sides. It's a fairly minor hit compared to building 2. But in building 1, opposite the crash site, there are pictures of an inferno, a bright red stripe, running the whole length of the floor. This fire, completely covering a floor, and touching all the external supports, is what brought the building down.
Now, given that the two buildings were hit thirty floors apart, and the one hit lower fell over in less time, I'd pretty much say that the expert you quote is an unmittigated idiot.
Not only is thirty floors too much of a difference to say "exactly where to hit it..." but it's obvious that the building hit lower was more damaged.
I'm willing to concede that the lower hit was MUCH more damaging, taking out the whole side and half of two other sides, of external supports, but this simply shows that the building, if all it's supports are destroyed, WILL fall over, regardless of where the supports are destroyed.
There is some question on the exact crash-worthiness of these buildings, but you shouldn't call anyone an idiot until you make sure you're right, and in this case, simply examining the public available photos would have disproven much of what you and your precious expert have said.
I'm not enough of an expert to make my own claims as to specifically why the buildings were weakened in certain ways, but I know enough and am able to use the available information to see that many of the so-called experts are dead wrong.
(Similar to the "expert" pilots who claim the terrorists had to be airliner certified... As someone pointed out, the pilots would have flown them to their target city, as they expected to be allowed to land. And once you can see your target, hitting it is trivial. I have flown a cessna (just doing some basic slow turns) and I found it easier than driving a car. Considering Boeing jetliners are among the most stable and easy to pilot in the world, often claimed to be much easier to handle than a personal prop plane, I imagine a child could have hit the towers.)
Re:The views of a Muslim in NY
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
You're correct. We can't attack Muslims for this any more than we can attack Christians for McVeigh's bombing.
But I think people really need to start seeing religion for what it is, a method of brainwashing. Sure, most people just act like passive sheep. But there are some who would twist even an overtly loving message into one justifying killing.
It's not like the only people who deceive are religious ones, or that the only mental control is that exerted through religion, but it's significant. Moreso than just for its numbers, but for the acceptance. When someone leads a thousand followers in the quest for the alien masters, everyone rightfully judges them to be crazy and watches them to make sure they're not harmful.
Yet everyday we pass buildings built by those who are essentially cultists. These buildings a meeting halls for people who believe an internally inconsistent set of beliefs that culminates in an omnipotent being creating the entire universe, for humanity, specifically their fellow believers, who then gets petulent when his tiny creations don't worship in the exact ways specified...
We don't give these people any thought because we're told that religion is good, religion is normal.
To borrow a phrase, Hell no! A bunch of sick people acting in direct contrast to what a rational view of reality would suggest is NOT something we should sit back and accept as normal.
We need to see that allowing people to brainwash their children with religion is child abuse, similar to indoctrinating them with any other wildly unrealistic lie. You might as well tell your children they can fly, as to bring them up religious.
This indoctrination hurts us all by raising people unable to cope with reality without retreating into their fantasy world. It raises people who act in a manner that is insane when viewed by someone who hasn't been similarly brainwashed.
These attacks were made by people who believed they would live forever in paradise if they killed enemies of their religion.
Seriously, if anyone said that they thought they would live forever in paradise for committing murderous attrocities, you'd call them insane and lock them up, unless they then claimed to be religious, at which point you sigh with relief and release them.
This insanity MUST stop. Religion is the direct enemy of all rational people. We must see it as the brainwashing that it is and take steps to eliminate it, as well as people who make use of it to control others, and people who profit from it. The victims we will try to rehabilitate into useful and rational members of society.
What you are right about though, is that we shouldn't be targetting any skin color, or national boundary. There are dangerous religious followers of all colors and living all around the world. The true crime wouldn't be in unfairly targetting someone for this specific crime, but in not finding and stopping a fanatic who is just waiting to be commanded by god to kill the innocent.
Make him a unix, I mean, eunech
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
You're both right...
$ chmod a+x/usr/terrorists/osama
That makes him executable.
$ rm -f/usr/terrorists/osama
That removes him permanently, with force.
You have to make him executable before you kill him...
Re:Red Cross Needs Tech Help
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Hello!?!
Microsoft *donates* licenses for their programs. Often they give out ONE CD and the "right to use it", this $.50 of plastic and metal, they write off for $250/seat on their taxes.
It should be a crime. If you question this, try it. You'll end up having an unpleasant discussion with the IRS. But MS gets away with it.
Two thirds of the "money" that Microsoft supposedly donates each year (which makes them the most charitable company) is in licenses, which costs them nothing. In fact, those licenses make them money in the long run because instead of a charity using what they could buy on a limited budget and supporting alternative OSes, they simply strengthen the MS monopoly.
No, MS didn't cause the suicide bombers, but that's about the only thing they didn't do!
What's REALLY sickening is you suck-ass apologists coming out of the woodwork and claiming that every slight against Bill or MS is unwarranted, then whining about how Slashdot has such a horrible bias. Hello, ASSHOLE, MS is hated for a reason. Bill personally has done as much as he is capable of to destroy the free markets, to hold back innovation, and to force people to pay him for a product they don't want. Isn't that reason enough to despise him?
Heh, no. That's a sig, and it only looks like it's directed at you.:)
TMTOWTDI -> There's More Than One Way To Do It
It's a perl-ism, reflecting the fact that there's many different ways to do the same thing. His comment means that of those ways, many only partially work...
Often new programmers see that two things produce the same surface results and consider them interchangable, when there are really many side-effects...
Like using x++; and ++x; In a simple statment, both work. In a complex statement they can lead to much hair-pulling.
In C, you can define some functions a pre-processor macros, which are expanded into C code before compilation.
#define foo(x,y) ((x * x)+(y * y)+(x * y))
for instance, when used as foo(x++,y) turns into...
((x++ * x++) + (y * y) + (x++ * y))
This *might* produce the intended results, because the post-increment is only guaranteed to happen before the next statement, but even if that statement works fine, x will be two higher than you were thinking it should be.
Anyways, ramble over. TMTOWTDI -> a couple correct ways, many seemingly correct ways. It's why beginners are encouraged to not be fancy.
This could be their desire to serve the nation, but it's also explainable with a profit motive.
If they stopped showing live footage, people would go elsewhere. If less people watched CNN, it would make their reputation much less valuable when setting the price for future advertising.
For a while yesterday, EVERYONE, was showing the same coverage. CNN wasn't any better than any other station (and much worse in some cases). There was nothing to keep people watching them instead of another channel, except that viewers probably went straight to CNN for news and never bothered flipping.
It makes business sense to not show commercials during some periods. If you notice, no stations (at least that I saw) showed any.
There was a great interview on CBC radio (Canadian) last night with a retired pilot (just recently) and various "experts".
The pilot said it was dead simple to control a jumbo jet once in the air. He said that they're easier to steer than small airplanes. The only difficult part he said they faced was navigating from the hijack site to the crash site. He then went on to say that this would be fairly easy because he would guess they kept the pilots alive until they reached the destination city.
He said all they'd have to do would be order the pilots to divert to the airport in that city. The pilots would comply, thinking they'd land safely and the terrorists would be taken out with minimal loss of life once on the ground.
He added that from an approach to the airport in NYC, you can (could) see the WTC towers, at that point a child could have carried out the mission.
If you notice from the videos, the planes didn't hit in the same place on both buildings. I'd assume that if they were skilled they'd have both tried to destroy the same piece of building, be it a corner, or the central supports. They also hit fairly high. If they'd hit near the ground, almost everyone in the buildings would have been trapped and it's likely to have triggered a collapse much more quickly.
This to me says that it was fairly unskilled people flying, who were given fairly general instructions.
As the for knife...
I've taken a knife onto a major airliner many times. I've got a mini-leatherman on my keychain which has been seen a few times and ignored. I've also got a Leatherman Wave which I carry on my belt. I always pass it through the scanner and they've only twice mentioned it, both times it was good enough to put it in my carry-on. The rest of the time I've put it back in its case on my belt.
I didn't do this maliciously, I just never thought of it. To me it's a tool, that has a knife blade. It wasn't until I was on the flight once that I realized what they had allowed me to carry on. And then I just assumed what everyone did... what good is a knife, hijackers use guns...
I'd imagine that any physically imposing group of people could have accomplished this, just be scary enough that people won't try to rush you, and have a nice story like "We're landing in NYC and bargaining for the release of..." or something.
Nope. There's a *whole lot* of "there's a bully who got what he deserved," in how I felt after the school shootings.
My only regret is that they killed somewhat indiscriminately instead of only killing the bullies.
What I really don't understand is your unwillingness to defend yourself... how you think violence is wrong. If a bully uses violence, chances are it's all they'll recognize. I'm not saying you should kill someone for hitting you, but if they hit you to control you, why is it unjust for you to hit them back harder to make them stop?
You don't have to be a slave, but you need to realize that they'll always pick on you unless something makes them stop. That something will NOT be the school, or the police. (One of the jocks killed in the Columbine shooting was accused of raping a fellow student, the school helped keep him out of trouble because he was a star athlete.)
When I was in school I got in two fights. One in grade four, and one in grade eight. Both times I was being picked on by a group, both times I violently dealt with the leader of the group, and both times I was left alone by all trouble makers for the remainder of my time at the school.
In grade eight, I was told that I was going to have the "shit kicked out of me" after school. The bullies had progressed to moderate violence and knew where I lived and the direction I had to walk to get home. They had waited for me to leave school in the past. I told the administration and they did nothing, they didn't even investigate.
When I was threatened the next day, I picked the lead bully up by the neck, slammed his head into a locker, and told him I'd throw him down the stairwell (we had an open stairwell three flights down) if he ever so much as threatened me again. I then wrapped both hands around his throat and began to squeeze while holding him in the air.
When a teacher heard this and investigated I put him down and walked off to the office. They said there that they knew it was justified and I wouldn't be punished. I want to know why, if they knew, they hadn't done something earlier.
But that was the turning point, after that he was always afraid of me, he and his friends never came near me again.
All I had to do was show that I was willing to defend myself, that he couldn't walk all over me, and the harassment and threats ended.
But, I bet you don't think I was justified, do you?
Damn right. Stalin, Pol Pot, both ordered the deaths of far more people than Hitler.
And, for death tolls, the US bombing of Dresden killed more people than the atomic bomb in Hiroshima did. In a slower, more painful way probably. And Germany was closer to surrender at that point than Japan was.
People are such sheep. I know many people who think the allies were completely unjustified in bombing Japan. When I question them, I find that many don't know that Hiroshima was a military target, that Japan had vowed to never surrender, that a land assault would have cost the lives of an estimated 150-250k allied troops alone, as well as many more Japanese.
The ignorance of the general public is fucking pathetic. And these people's votes carry as much say as anyone else. Ugh. (I'm not saying people have to agree with me, just that they should at least make an effort to learn about an issue before taking a strong stand on it.)
There's a lot of evidence that the government knew the Japanese were up to something, and that they may have known specifics.
There are many reasons though, why they might have sat on the news instead of informing people.
1) This would have let the Japanese know their codes had been broken.
2) They wanted to get into the war and needed a very bloody reason - it made the US the good guys.
They had sent the carrier group out for exercises, and from what I've read, the base was undermanned because a lot of people were given leave. This could have meant that they preserved all they could, without giving it away. And maybe they didn't know exactly what was planned, and decided to simply decentralize everything for a while.
Another theory is that they had decided that carriers were the way to win the war, but they couldn't get rid of all the battleships that were taking up so many resources, and had the support of all the old-timers. Having them sunk could have been a convenient way to achieve many goals at once.
After all, it is *known* that the allies let certain European cities be bombed rather than let the Germans know Enigma had been cracked.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I don't donate five million dollars, it's worthless?
Sorry, but I don't make even $50k a year on my own, the $100 I donated on Amazon will have to do.
I stand by my claim though, that Bill does squat, when seen as a percentage of his income. Not only that, but he donates useless shit and expects praise for it.
Well fuck him, and fuck morons like you too, if you're too god damned stupid to see how he's pulling your strings.
Would it make me a "good person" if I donated $2000 worth of old copies of OS/2? I've got the licenses for them, salvaged from my last company.
Wow, I'd be just like Bill, donating a pile of steaming shit and expecting people to suck me off for it.
God, I've never talked to someone as utterly incapable of detecting PR bullshit as you.
When Bill gives 5% of his month's income, and donates blood, then I'll be impressed. Until then, he's a cheapskate who's just doing it for publicity, and with idiots falling for it, I can see it works.
Well, first, I should clarify... The autistic child may be highly functioning according to some, but this just means he's not a risk to himself or others. He's very unschooled, I don't know if he can read.
By mildly, I was assuming that autism was usually so bad that you're essentially a vegetable. If I was wrong, I'm sorry.
Now, to the bulk of the post.
Right, I can't say that my accomplishments are more important than yours, I can't say that my hobbies are more worthwhile, even if yours might seem that way to me personally. (Not to say that they do.)
I also don't think I'm happied, sitting down, doing what I enjoy, than you are, sitting down, doing what you enjoy.
Happy moment, for happy moment, I think we're equal.
But I question the ability of some to seek out those happy moments. This boy I'm talking about likes to play certain simple games, but these all require another person. When his caretaker gets tired of playing the game, he's unable to entertain himself.
All else being equal, I think he'd be happier without autism.
Being that I am unwilling to end someone's life because they don't agree with me (MS supporters would be first, by a mile, if I did) I wouldn't threaten you or anyone else, no matter how deficient in any area you appeared (to me) to be.
But I would take steps to make sure my children, to the best of my ability, remained as healthy as possible. This includes preventing them from smoking, drinking bleach, having a lobotomy, or whatever.
I would also try to keep them healthy proactively, but aborting one I feared would be handicapped. Again, all else being equal, I think they'd be happier without a disability.
btw, you should read _Distress_ (or DistressED, I'm not sure) by Greg Egan. He's a cool author who's written neat stuff, but specifically, this book talks about people choosing to be autistic, and the reasons behind it.
It's a great look at why we feel the need to defend the way we are as being "the way."
OT: I may go away for the weekend (starting tonight), if you wish to talk to me, please email me as well as posting.
I wouldn't say that the life of one person is less valuable than that of another...
However, all else being equal, I'd choose the zygote that was the least likely to cause my child to be born with Downs, or Autistic, etc.
Once you have them, I think you're responsible for looking after them, children don't come with a money-back guarantee.
This all comes down to abortion. I don't feel it's murder, if done soon enough. (How soon is soon enough is essentially unanswerable, though I feel the first trimester is safe.)
I'd fight to prevent my child from being exposed to poison which would cause brain damage, why is it unreasonable to try to ensure a healthy child in other ways?
Let me do it for you.
That's a pittance.
Moreover, MS is up to their same tricks, giving away software licenses and claiming the full retail value as a donation.
It's cheap. It's deceitful, and IMHO the IRS should be banging away at the door.
If we're cynical about MS the rest of the time, why can't we be cynical now? Bill has proven time and again that he's willing to lie to a judge and break the law just to make a buck, why should we assume all of a sudden that he's a great humanitarian?
Oh, I forgot... his company (not even Bill himself) donated $5m... And they make how many billion per year? It's a pathetic gimick, like tipping $.05 in a restaurant, to make a statement.
What wonderful human beings. I want, desperately, to carry Bill's child, because he is such a beacon to the world. [/sarcasm]
You know, if you can't fight my opinions with words, you shouldn't appeal to moderators. It's *not* flamebait, I'm utterly serious.
I *do* believe you are brainwashing your children.
If you tell them to do certain things to fit into society, fine. If you tell them that YOU believe you shouldn't hurt someone, fine.
But if you tell them "god says", or use religion as the reason for what you're teaching them, you are brainwashing them. You're appealing to a higher power who isn't available to question.
How would you feel if we were having an argument about something, the value of pi for instance, and I said it was "3.5", and when asked for proof, told that "Bob told me, he's a phd in math!"
That's what you're doing to your children, every time you teach them something as coming from god, you are removing their right to question it and discover the truth on their own.
Now, you sound like a good person, you probably teach them many fine things, but that doesn't change the fact that your methods are brainwashing.
A benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
If you truly love your children, you'll have to let them lead their own lives, and that means decided how to act, and importantly, why.
I'm not advocating preventing people from being religious. Hell, I think drugs should be legalized - it's your life to do with as you will...
I *am* in favour of preventing people from teaching religion to children, the same as I'm against giving them drugs. They're too young to decide important life decisions.
It's a crime to deny your child medical attention because of religious beliefs. I'd make it a crime to teach them your religion, the brainwashing could lead to similarly harmful choices later.
The fact that I was modded up doesn't prove anything, except that I stated my point well and many people believe I have a valid point.
Your arguments make no sense.
You're unwilling to cure one problem, just because others exist?
Yes, Stalin purged millions. We realize this and will take steps against people like him in the future.
"Moron"
Shithead.
There, feel better?
"Read the First Amendment."
Don't need to.
1) I'm not from the USA
2) The existance of a law does not indicate the correctness of that law
3) I'm not saying people shouldn't BE religious, just that they shouldn't brainwash others (mainly children) to be religious.
btw, "How the fuck that idiocy got modded up to +5" is by being incredibly insightful. Hey, 4/5 moderators think I'm a genius, it MUST be true.
You can't cut me down for failing to logical and then proceed to beat the fallacy horse until it dies.
The least logical thing you said was "you can't disprove the existance of god, can you?"
I don't need to. All I need to do is point to two or more mutually exclusive religions, that alone is proof that one or more are wrong.
Now, as further evidence in this line, I doubt you can state your belief in god as a testable theory, thus there's nothing to disprove.
Further, you can't prove a negative, calls for someone to do this are empty. Instead, you proceed by disproving the positive form. I can't prove there ISN'T a god, because your definition will change to suit the moment. I can attack your proof that the is a god, and in the absence of proof, I think it's fairly obvious which is correct. Either your god, alone of all gods, exists, or we could show that at most one religion could be true, and with the many inconsistencies in them all, it's likely that instead of 99% of them being false, it's more likely that 100% are false.
If you want to see a list of these inconsistencies, go to google and search for "bible inconsistencies" or something similar. There are hundreds of sites which address this.
Having shown strong cause to disbelieve the existance of a god, I think it falls upon you to present a theory for and prove the existance of god. The burden of proof is yours, because you're asking me to accept the existance of something for which there is no direct evidence. (No, the bible doesn't count.)
"coercion was not been part of the process that led me to be a believer."
Not that you see. That's the whole idea with brainwashing. If you start with a child, telling them something, discouraging them from thinking analytically about it, and from questioning it, of course they're going to believe it. Now, if you have been similarly raised, you're going to believe this yourself, so you will likely see it as a loving duty to the child. The fact that you do this kindly doesn't change the fact that it's mental manipulation.
Did you parents raise you in a religious vacumm, to decide upon your 18th birthday, the truth behind god? If so, what proof (tangible) swayed you to make the decision?
"Does it occur to you that people may have an internally and externally consistent beliefs,"
No. I've read enough of the bible to know otherwise, remember, all it takes is one inconsistency to disprove that it was directly passed down as the word of god.
I also know enough religious people to spot inconsistent behaviour, which goes to suggest that this is endemic.
"many people (myself included) do not believe God to be petulant in any way shape or form,"
This would be the same god who commanded people to be stoned, that order babies to be killed, etc? The same one who smote the enemies of the "chosen" for the sole crime of not believing in him? You know, I think your god is throwing a tantrum.
"Since our country has laws based on a the U.S. Constitution,"
I'll mention here that I'm Canadian, just to keep things clear, but I'll accept that comment as you intended it.
"you are free to disbelieve, but I am also free to believe , and practice my beliefs so long as they remain within the constraints of societal law."
And until "recently" US citizens were allowed to own slaves. The mere existance of a law allowing something does not make it a good choice to follow, nor does it say anything about the morality or correctness of that action.
"Most 'cults' do not remain within those constraints."
By your definitions. To me, they seem as arbitrary as my definitions much seem to you.
``A cult is a religion with no political power.'' - Tom Wolfe
"You just committed another logical fallacy by excluding the possibility that rational people can also be religious, another logical fallacy, like saying 'the sky is blue, my eyes are blue, therefore anyone whose eye's aren't blue can't possibly see the sky...'"
Sigh. No, I didn't commit a falacy here.
I attempted to show that belief in religion was directly contrary to observed reality. I then stated that religious people could not be rational.
Being that rational behaviour is defined as that you rationalize, or reason out, belief in something unproven isn't rational. Unless you have proof of god (which I'd love to hear) you can't be rational.
Or, to be precise, you are being irrational in one area, it goes to show that you have a history of irrational behaviour. While in some areas you may act rationally, as a whole, you are not.
"It is just as much brainwashing and dishonest indoctrination to to insist that our educational systems teach that atheism"
Irrelevant. I'm not saying our schools should teach athiesm. If I were to say what our schools should do, it would be that they should NOT teach religion. Simply not indoctrinating children with false teaching will allow them to choose on their own, and I see no reason why they would feel compelled to create a god to believe in. This may be equivalent to teaching them athiesm, but it allows them to reach the conclusions on their own and thus isn't brainwashing.
"I can easily be proven to be a useful member of society, even though I believe in God."
You freely admit you believe in something unprovable like a god, and you want me to believe you're rational and free-thinking? Sorry, I'll go for the person who doesn't believe what a church tells him.
While you may not be detrimental to society, what assurance do I have that your god, which I beleive to be a delusion, won't start telling you to kill... After all, most suicide bombers do so thinking they'll reach spiritual salvation for their acts, and their holy beliefs look much like yours. (Assuming you're christian, but likely true regardless.)
"I wonder what you would say if you were trapped in the WTC explosions and I was the only person who could help you get down the stairs and told you that it was my 'God-given duty to help you get out of the building alive.' Would you so glibly accuse me of retreating into fantasy then?"
No. I'd wait until we were out of the building. But that's irrelevant.
You exist, your actions influence my world, thus I can benefit from taking advantage of certain ones. This doesn't mean that I accept your reasons for performing these actions as valid, merely that I can see what you are doing and act upon it.
"True beliefs don't allow a retreat-- they obligate the owner of those beliefs to act."
That's the problem. If you truly believe your god gave you a mission, you'll do it. That's why religious people are a risk to those around them.
"So if you don't mind, I'll try to become a better person based on my beliefs,"
I don't mind your goals of self-betterment, but I do think your beliefs will get in the way. Until you know YOU, without the brainwashing, you'll never know your true potential.
"All I can suggest is that if you want to preach atheism, you at least learn to do a better, more logical job of it."
I wasn't preaching athiesm. For one, it's not a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from a set of religious beliefs.
Second, I didn't try to teach you that your beliefs were wrong (initially, though I did point out flaws this time.) Instead, I simply took it as being self-evident that you were wrong, and spoke to the other non-religious people, saying that being as most of our problem-people are religious, and it is a delusion, we might want to keep a better eye on you, or possibly regulate your brainwashing of future generations.
I'd venture a guess that you really don't understand what a falacy is, that you've simply been told "To counter the argument that X, say Y". You misidentified what I was saying as falacious, because your zeal to disprove my views got in your way. If you wish to continue the debate, please prove the existance of god, in such a manner as to be acceptible to a non-believer. This is the crux of the issue, if you can't prove the basis of your belief, you're not being rational.
My fiance's family adopted a child who is autistic, mildly. He's been WAY more work than they had intended, and now it's clear he'll never be able to leave home, never be able to do anything without someone walking him slowly through it.
Sure, he has happy days. There are some things he enjoys doing, but overall, he's the least happy of the children, by FAR.
Combine this with someone a bit less retarded, who can tell how far behind everyone else they are, and I think that they'd be profoundly unhappy, despite happy instances in their life.
And with the same advice, you'd have aborted hundreds of mentally or physically retarded babies.
This gets even better now, because we're much closer to being able to tell if the baby has a problem, instead of just playing the odds.
If geniuses were always retarded in other ways, aborting a retarded baby would risk our only supply of geniuses, but there are plenty of geniuses who don't have any great physical or mental flaws.
I stand by my position of aborting babies that tests show will be retarded.
Well, alzheimers can do this. A friend's grandfather suffered from this for years before he died. He knew everything he used to be able to do, he used to remember the details, and before his death he barely remembered the outline. For instance, he knew he'd been in the army, but not the details of his service.
He had met his wife while in the army, and later that whole period of his life was gone.
He knew just enough to know how much he'd lost.
Sure, ignorance is bliss. Now, I'm sure you'll consent to your lobotomy, right? After all, some patients go on to very happy lives, even if they're a bit simple...
I'm sure that non-retarded people live much more fulfilling lives, so while someone with a mental problem may be happy, they'd have been more independant, and likely much happier, if they were healthy.
For instance, my relationship with my fiance is the best thing that's happened to me, I wouldn't be independant enough to support myself, let alone able to find a lover and have a meaningful relationship.
Not to mention, don't the parents ever want the kid to move out? Wouldn't the kid be unhappy when his parents die and he has to move to a home? And wouldn't he, to the degree he'd be able, feel upset about being such a burden?
I've made MY decision. I've asked family to withdraw life-support if I'm ever badly brain-damaged. The most painful thing for me would be to go through life, remembering everything I could have been. Can you imagine knowing you had once been able to program, but now not been able to comprehend a mouse, or read even simple books?
No way! Better off dead!
"or not"
Well, considering that many "experts" disagree with your "expert", I don't take his not agreeing with me as proof that I'm wrong.
The reason I said 25th floor, is that it's the practical maximum you can get outside help to fight a fire at, it's approaching 80m up, and firefighting is severely hampered.
Now, as to the lower floors being stronger...
The jet impact on building 2 took out all the supports in its path, it likely would have done the same to even stronger supports.
Now, the building will be stronger lower down, but it will also have more weight about the damaged area, and critically important, more of the building is swaying back and forth above it.
I think that, if the fire was unchecked, the lower the crash, the sooner the collapse, and the more deaths. Now, the lower the crash, the easier the firefighting, but I don't think the 60th floor was required for that.
If MS didn't give the licenses away, the charities would buy either other OSes, or used copies of Windows. They certainly wouldn't pay $200 for an OS when the average cost of their hardware is likely that much.
And actually, some charities DO use Linux. I doubt they know it, but I've donated computers to a charity, configured to load into KDE, with nothing but Mozilla and a couple of low-end apps available. That's all they wanted, public internet terminals, that's what they got.
Indeed, they got the only set of systems that they didn't have to have administered. The windows systems they have are so loose that they get toasted every week or so and need to be reinstalled (Ghosted, now that I showed them how) but the Linux computers don't need that.
Besides, if MS hadn't used their predatory practices for so long, there might actually be commercial competition.
Your whole argument is like forgiving someone who killed his parents, because he's an orphan.
Microsoft supporters are either stock-holders (directly or through mutual funds) or "the average joe" who knows nothing about the situation and simply distrusts the government. (Or, as has come out, Microsoft employees faking grass-roots support through faked mailings and through postings on sites like Slashdot, ZD, etc.)
Is that what it takes to get them to donate something that isn't licenses? Wow. Just kill ten thousand people and Microsoft will cough up a couple of dollars.
I wouldn't care that they don't donate much, except that they make such a big deal about it to get praised, and they get a massive tax write-off.
If MS was playing fair, they'd have claimed their cost on the licenses, not the absolute highest retail sales price.
I give a rats ass what they gave. They claim to be such a charitable organization and do SWEET FUCK ALL to actually help people. Oh, how nice. I'm supposed to be happy that they gave away licenses to a company who couldn't have bought them. Cost to MS, $0, lost sales, $0. Yet they claim millions in tax relief.
And they take sales from companies who sell products that the charities could afford.
MS is slime, by slime, and evidently, supported by slime.
Wow, so MS followed the crowd and donated cash THIS TIME, but only to match what other companies are doing.
I wouldn't care if they didn't donate at all, I care that they make such a half-asses attempt and then expect to be praised.
Well, you obviously fell for it.
Preliminary reports are that NOBODY escaped from above the floors the planes hit, that means (110 - 60) + (110 - 90) = 70 floors full of people that were trapped. Hitting lower, say the 25th floor, would have shut the floors off in the same way, and would have been too high for anyone to safely jump from.
The "experts" I've heard have said that the buildings very likely (95%) would have withstood the original crash and could possibly have been repaired. What they ALL agree on is that the main (some say the sole) cause of the collapse is the fire. If you look at the photos of building 1, there's a hole through the corner, on two adjoining sides. It's a fairly minor hit compared to building 2. But in building 1, opposite the crash site, there are pictures of an inferno, a bright red stripe, running the whole length of the floor. This fire, completely covering a floor, and touching all the external supports, is what brought the building down.
Now, given that the two buildings were hit thirty floors apart, and the one hit lower fell over in less time, I'd pretty much say that the expert you quote is an unmittigated idiot.
Not only is thirty floors too much of a difference to say "exactly where to hit it..." but it's obvious that the building hit lower was more damaged.
I'm willing to concede that the lower hit was MUCH more damaging, taking out the whole side and half of two other sides, of external supports, but this simply shows that the building, if all it's supports are destroyed, WILL fall over, regardless of where the supports are destroyed.
There is some question on the exact crash-worthiness of these buildings, but you shouldn't call anyone an idiot until you make sure you're right, and in this case, simply examining the public available photos would have disproven much of what you and your precious expert have said.
I'm not enough of an expert to make my own claims as to specifically why the buildings were weakened in certain ways, but I know enough and am able to use the available information to see that many of the so-called experts are dead wrong.
(Similar to the "expert" pilots who claim the terrorists had to be airliner certified... As someone pointed out, the pilots would have flown them to their target city, as they expected to be allowed to land. And once you can see your target, hitting it is trivial. I have flown a cessna (just doing some basic slow turns) and I found it easier than driving a car. Considering Boeing jetliners are among the most stable and easy to pilot in the world, often claimed to be much easier to handle than a personal prop plane, I imagine a child could have hit the towers.)
You're correct. We can't attack Muslims for this any more than we can attack Christians for McVeigh's bombing.
But I think people really need to start seeing religion for what it is, a method of brainwashing. Sure, most people just act like passive sheep. But there are some who would twist even an overtly loving message into one justifying killing.
It's not like the only people who deceive are religious ones, or that the only mental control is that exerted through religion, but it's significant. Moreso than just for its numbers, but for the acceptance. When someone leads a thousand followers in the quest for the alien masters, everyone rightfully judges them to be crazy and watches them to make sure they're not harmful.
Yet everyday we pass buildings built by those who are essentially cultists. These buildings a meeting halls for people who believe an internally inconsistent set of beliefs that culminates in an omnipotent being creating the entire universe, for humanity, specifically their fellow believers, who then gets petulent when his tiny creations don't worship in the exact ways specified...
We don't give these people any thought because we're told that religion is good, religion is normal.
To borrow a phrase, Hell no! A bunch of sick people acting in direct contrast to what a rational view of reality would suggest is NOT something we should sit back and accept as normal.
We need to see that allowing people to brainwash their children with religion is child abuse, similar to indoctrinating them with any other wildly unrealistic lie. You might as well tell your children they can fly, as to bring them up religious.
This indoctrination hurts us all by raising people unable to cope with reality without retreating into their fantasy world. It raises people who act in a manner that is insane when viewed by someone who hasn't been similarly brainwashed.
These attacks were made by people who believed they would live forever in paradise if they killed enemies of their religion.
Seriously, if anyone said that they thought they would live forever in paradise for committing murderous attrocities, you'd call them insane and lock them up, unless they then claimed to be religious, at which point you sigh with relief and release them.
This insanity MUST stop. Religion is the direct enemy of all rational people. We must see it as the brainwashing that it is and take steps to eliminate it, as well as people who make use of it to control others, and people who profit from it. The victims we will try to rehabilitate into useful and rational members of society.
What you are right about though, is that we shouldn't be targetting any skin color, or national boundary. There are dangerous religious followers of all colors and living all around the world. The true crime wouldn't be in unfairly targetting someone for this specific crime, but in not finding and stopping a fanatic who is just waiting to be commanded by god to kill the innocent.
You're both right...
/usr/terrorists/osama
/usr/terrorists/osama
$ chmod a+x
That makes him executable.
$ rm -f
That removes him permanently, with force.
You have to make him executable before you kill him...
Hello!?!
Microsoft *donates* licenses for their programs. Often they give out ONE CD and the "right to use it", this $.50 of plastic and metal, they write off for $250/seat on their taxes.
It should be a crime. If you question this, try it. You'll end up having an unpleasant discussion with the IRS. But MS gets away with it.
Two thirds of the "money" that Microsoft supposedly donates each year (which makes them the most charitable company) is in licenses, which costs them nothing. In fact, those licenses make them money in the long run because instead of a charity using what they could buy on a limited budget and supporting alternative OSes, they simply strengthen the MS monopoly.
No, MS didn't cause the suicide bombers, but that's about the only thing they didn't do!
What's REALLY sickening is you suck-ass apologists coming out of the woodwork and claiming that every slight against Bill or MS is unwarranted, then whining about how Slashdot has such a horrible bias. Hello, ASSHOLE, MS is hated for a reason. Bill personally has done as much as he is capable of to destroy the free markets, to hold back innovation, and to force people to pay him for a product they don't want. Isn't that reason enough to despise him?
Heh, no. That's a sig, and it only looks like it's directed at you. :)
TMTOWTDI -> There's More Than One Way To Do It
It's a perl-ism, reflecting the fact that there's many different ways to do the same thing. His comment means that of those ways, many only partially work...
Often new programmers see that two things produce the same surface results and consider them interchangable, when there are really many side-effects...
Like using x++; and ++x; In a simple statment, both work. In a complex statement they can lead to much hair-pulling.
In C, you can define some functions a pre-processor macros, which are expanded into C code before compilation.
#define foo(x,y) ((x * x)+(y * y)+(x * y))
for instance, when used as foo(x++,y) turns into...
((x++ * x++) + (y * y) + (x++ * y))
This *might* produce the intended results, because the post-increment is only guaranteed to happen before the next statement, but even if that statement works fine, x will be two higher than you were thinking it should be.
Anyways, ramble over. TMTOWTDI -> a couple correct ways, many seemingly correct ways. It's why beginners are encouraged to not be fancy.
This could be their desire to serve the nation, but it's also explainable with a profit motive.
If they stopped showing live footage, people would go elsewhere. If less people watched CNN, it would make their reputation much less valuable when setting the price for future advertising.
For a while yesterday, EVERYONE, was showing the same coverage. CNN wasn't any better than any other station (and much worse in some cases). There was nothing to keep people watching them instead of another channel, except that viewers probably went straight to CNN for news and never bothered flipping.
It makes business sense to not show commercials during some periods. If you notice, no stations (at least that I saw) showed any.
There was a great interview on CBC radio (Canadian) last night with a retired pilot (just recently) and various "experts".
..." or something.
The pilot said it was dead simple to control a jumbo jet once in the air. He said that they're easier to steer than small airplanes. The only difficult part he said they faced was navigating from the hijack site to the crash site. He then went on to say that this would be fairly easy because he would guess they kept the pilots alive until they reached the destination city.
He said all they'd have to do would be order the pilots to divert to the airport in that city. The pilots would comply, thinking they'd land safely and the terrorists would be taken out with minimal loss of life once on the ground.
He added that from an approach to the airport in NYC, you can (could) see the WTC towers, at that point a child could have carried out the mission.
If you notice from the videos, the planes didn't hit in the same place on both buildings. I'd assume that if they were skilled they'd have both tried to destroy the same piece of building, be it a corner, or the central supports. They also hit fairly high. If they'd hit near the ground, almost everyone in the buildings would have been trapped and it's likely to have triggered a collapse much more quickly.
This to me says that it was fairly unskilled people flying, who were given fairly general instructions.
As the for knife...
I've taken a knife onto a major airliner many times. I've got a mini-leatherman on my keychain which has been seen a few times and ignored. I've also got a Leatherman Wave which I carry on my belt. I always pass it through the scanner and they've only twice mentioned it, both times it was good enough to put it in my carry-on. The rest of the time I've put it back in its case on my belt.
I didn't do this maliciously, I just never thought of it. To me it's a tool, that has a knife blade. It wasn't until I was on the flight once that I realized what they had allowed me to carry on. And then I just assumed what everyone did... what good is a knife, hijackers use guns...
I'd imagine that any physically imposing group of people could have accomplished this, just be scary enough that people won't try to rush you, and have a nice story like "We're landing in NYC and bargaining for the release of
Nope. There's a *whole lot* of "there's a bully who got what he deserved," in how I felt after the school shootings.
My only regret is that they killed somewhat indiscriminately instead of only killing the bullies.
What I really don't understand is your unwillingness to defend yourself... how you think violence is wrong. If a bully uses violence, chances are it's all they'll recognize. I'm not saying you should kill someone for hitting you, but if they hit you to control you, why is it unjust for you to hit them back harder to make them stop?
You don't have to be a slave, but you need to realize that they'll always pick on you unless something makes them stop. That something will NOT be the school, or the police. (One of the jocks killed in the Columbine shooting was accused of raping a fellow student, the school helped keep him out of trouble because he was a star athlete.)
When I was in school I got in two fights. One in grade four, and one in grade eight. Both times I was being picked on by a group, both times I violently dealt with the leader of the group, and both times I was left alone by all trouble makers for the remainder of my time at the school.
In grade eight, I was told that I was going to have the "shit kicked out of me" after school. The bullies had progressed to moderate violence and knew where I lived and the direction I had to walk to get home. They had waited for me to leave school in the past. I told the administration and they did nothing, they didn't even investigate.
When I was threatened the next day, I picked the lead bully up by the neck, slammed his head into a locker, and told him I'd throw him down the stairwell (we had an open stairwell three flights down) if he ever so much as threatened me again. I then wrapped both hands around his throat and began to squeeze while holding him in the air.
When a teacher heard this and investigated I put him down and walked off to the office. They said there that they knew it was justified and I wouldn't be punished. I want to know why, if they knew, they hadn't done something earlier.
But that was the turning point, after that he was always afraid of me, he and his friends never came near me again.
All I had to do was show that I was willing to defend myself, that he couldn't walk all over me, and the harassment and threats ended.
But, I bet you don't think I was justified, do you?
Damn right. Stalin, Pol Pot, both ordered the deaths of far more people than Hitler.
And, for death tolls, the US bombing of Dresden killed more people than the atomic bomb in Hiroshima did. In a slower, more painful way probably. And Germany was closer to surrender at that point than Japan was.
People are such sheep. I know many people who think the allies were completely unjustified in bombing Japan. When I question them, I find that many don't know that Hiroshima was a military target, that Japan had vowed to never surrender, that a land assault would have cost the lives of an estimated 150-250k allied troops alone, as well as many more Japanese.
The ignorance of the general public is fucking pathetic. And these people's votes carry as much say as anyone else. Ugh. (I'm not saying people have to agree with me, just that they should at least make an effort to learn about an issue before taking a strong stand on it.)
There's a lot of evidence that the government knew the Japanese were up to something, and that they may have known specifics.
There are many reasons though, why they might have sat on the news instead of informing people.
1) This would have let the Japanese know their codes had been broken.
2) They wanted to get into the war and needed a very bloody reason - it made the US the good guys.
They had sent the carrier group out for exercises, and from what I've read, the base was undermanned because a lot of people were given leave. This could have meant that they preserved all they could, without giving it away. And maybe they didn't know exactly what was planned, and decided to simply decentralize everything for a while.
Another theory is that they had decided that carriers were the way to win the war, but they couldn't get rid of all the battleships that were taking up so many resources, and had the support of all the old-timers. Having them sunk could have been a convenient way to achieve many goals at once.
After all, it is *known* that the allies let certain European cities be bombed rather than let the Germans know Enigma had been cracked.