God is supposed to be alive and active now. If god's real you should hear prayers when using its right name, when facing the right direction, if you're deserving, or in need of saving, etc, and not at other times.
Why on earth would you want to use religion for predictive power?
It (yours) predicts an afterlife. Many people are hoping that's right.
You're still failing to understand the NOMA concept.
NOMA isn't a concept, it's a dodge. It's the crack in god of the cracks.
You only hope there's a non-overlapping area because religion does abysmally at predicting anything and you so desperately want it to be right. You need a "there is no wrong here" zone where the afterlife and other concept can survive, unassailed by the forces that have removed the Earth from the center of the universe.
Thankfully. Now if that was GURPS I may be disappointed.
Those were cleric spells I was referring to. You could tell because animate is a 5th level spell for arcane casters, but 3rd for clerics. And, you know, because Res and True Res are cleric only spells.
Sure sure. But in brushing that off you ignore the illusionist theory. There's no reason to assume a rare high-level spell was involved when low-level trickery would have worked. Or, did someone cast a scrying that revealed a resurrection was cast? And who verified that?
You're buying their propaganda, then. Fundamentalists do not "attempt to believe the entire thing" - they are way worse than the cafeteria Christians in normal denominations. They actively believe things that are against the Bible, and then try to retcon everything to match their twisted view of scripture.
As opposed to the non-fundies who actively believe things that are against the bible, and then try to retcon everything to match their twisted view of scripture?
Fundies just believe that, if it's the word of god, or directed by god, that it's not their place to decide what it says. They still do find meaning between the lines but it's better than the usual religious person who decides something doesn't mean what it literally says.
And you're one of the mainstream ones of course, not the lunatic fringe! Do you feel more comfortable thinking that others believe as you do? Is this a source of strength for you?
Troll.
Not at all. That's the nature of religion. You played your part perfectly. Marginalize the dissenters, cement yourself into the main body of the group.
Anti-science ramblings? What the fuck? Have you paid no attention to what I wrote, or are you somehow still confusing "Christian" = "somehow everything he writes is anti-science"?
Well, to some degree that is true. If you're a christian you're going to see god behind everything, without investigating, just as a default. You have no evidence for the bible, or at least none that conflicting religions don't also share (ie, visions, etc) and yet you believe.
But I meant this NOMA thing and the retarded idea that you get some protected playground to go have god in that doesn't interact with anything these mean science people talk about so you're always right, or at least there's no evidence to ever indicate wrongness.
Protect yourself? Hah. Only because you live in a safe country. One made safe due to the military.
[...]
You're so far off the mark of my political beliefs that it's ridiculous. Fear isn't even close to being a major motivating factor for me. What do I have to be afraid of? I live in pretty safe place.
Not at all. You're afraid of just living without a standing army. Of having to be responsible for yourself and others.
My main concerns are for us to quit invading places without good reason, and to start thinking rationally about our future in a world of dwindling resources in certain areas.
Why, simply because it's not profitable or because of all the killing?
As far as Osama is concerned, he was at war with us, he killed thousands and promised to kill more.
No, you were at war with HIM, You put military bases in his country.
And yes, he (supposedly) killed thousands. But in trying to catch him you guys killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions (when counting sanctions too).
You actually create tens if not hundreds of practically unsupported hypotheses every day, and make decisions based on them. If that's not a form of belief, I don't know what is.
You're right, you don't. It isn't.
If one of my hypotheses is proven wrong I adjust. I don't sit and "believe" contrary to reality, I adjust my model and continue.
That you think some of it is a parable just means you're egotistical enough to judge what you believe to be divinely inspired.
How ironic that this comment just means that you're egotistical enough to judge others' moderate religious beliefs egotistical.
Being right about something isn't the same as judging someone for it.
You are lying, boy. You really should think up before stating things that can be defeated by 5-minute google search.
Things that would stand up in court. Could you convict a rich American on such evidence?
If you've got a link, to anything that existed before the raid, that meets that standard I'd like to hear it. Because everything I've seen is weak, coincidental, or hearsay.
Nah, I call you loon because you first ask for evidence and later pretend that said evidence does not exist, is forged and all of that classic excuses of conspiracy theorist crap.
All I ask is that it would stand up in court.
BTW new, previously unseen videos straight from compound was released. Surely these are also forged, riiiight? Oh, how easy life conspiracy loons have.
Videos of Osama buying box-cutters for 9/11? Or just videos of a raid on the compound.
It's not that, it's just that any non-scientific studying isn't studying. However, even a baby shoving things into its mouth is performing science, even if a poorly documented form.
Religious "study" is navel gazing followed by inventing an answer. That's why religion has absolutely no predictive power.
While you get +1 internets for being the first non-anonymous coward to respond to me (I mean, seriously, people - it doesn't take a lot of courage to post as an atheist on/.),
That your anti-science ramblings don't attract many registered users is more likely a comment about you.
really it's just a show of ignorance when atheists intentionally (or unintentionally) confuse religion and cult,
Nobody has been able to draw a non-self serving distinction between the two. Besides, even if there is a theoretical difference, in practice almost all religious groups employ unethical (cult-like) manipulative tactics. That used-car salesmen use the same tactics is no excuse.
or conflate fundamentalists with mainstream Christians.
Hah. And you're one of the mainstream ones of course, not the lunatic fringe! Do you feel more comfortable thinking that others believe as you do? Is this a source of strength for you?
Oh, and it's easy to tell fundamentalists. They're the ones with the integrity to attempt to believe the entire thing, not just the comfortable and easy bits.
Likewise, it's not funny when atheists say that Jesus was a zombie Jew. It just reveals their utter ignorance about the difference between Animate Dead (3rd level) and Resurrection (7th level spell).
Even if we grant for fact the words in any version of the bible, he wasn't observed doing anything a well-commanded zombie and handful of first-level spells couldn't do. Your 14/18th level mage theory assumes a lower-level mage, or even a lowly illusionist, couldn't have produced the same effects.
And your request has as much weight as your military/financial clout. The rest of the world benefits heavily from having the USA's secrets revealed and won't help you except as forced. See the rest of your jingoistic and self-serving statements for the reasons.
It's been this way since before the US was even a country. What in the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with military or financial clout and everything to do with rules and law. Do you realize that you are attempting to argue that it's because of something before that something ever existed. I mean fuck, use the brain sitting on top of your head for a minute.
What, your strawman doesn't make sense? Unpossible!
You say it's to do with rules and laws, and are right. But do you think laws just uphold themselves? There are countries full of people who are already re-evaluating the worth of treaties with the USA, especially given how self-serving and dishonest they've appeared lately. If those rules were applied to someone who appeared to be a real criminal, Kadaffi say, there'd be little question of other countries helping, but when applied to someone who merely exposed the lies of criminals, no.
Unless you plan to go to war with the New Zealand they're going to be asking themselves what's in it for them to sit back and let you take Assange because not only have you recently fucked them over with copyright treaties but as the 'little guys' they have far more to gain than lose from Wikileaks' revelations.
Those are two different scenarios. In your scenario a bad-guy commits a crime and flees. In this case Assange is rumored to have done something that was not a crime anywhere else and you're saying your law supersedes that. By that logic a Saudi citizen coming to the USA and buying a beer and a porno mag is opening the US retailer up to extradition to Saudi Arabia.
Listen, I posted a link about a guy who never stepped foot in the US and got deported to face charges.
Sure, for something the rest of the world doesn't consider ludicrous. Or self-serving for the USA to be trying to extradite someone for.
Most people have an anti-crime bias, but crime as they see it - harm to good people. They'll bend the rules to punish those criminals, but not people who break laws standing up to bullies.
Actually, there was two of them. If you somehow think it's different and you are still refusing to see the reality we live in, then I'm done here.
You were never here, in the sense of actually reading. Your proof isn't as convincing as you want it to be because you're trying to prove the wrong thing. You're stuck on showing that there are treaties. The point is that treaties need to be mutual or enforced and treaties with the USA are rarely mutual and your ability to enforce them decreases rapidly.
Oh, and it's not just my law, it's international treaty that says that. More precisely, In this case it's a treaty with Assange's home country which I already provided a link to..
It's in their interests to rid the world of murderers and bank robbers, etc, and even a few other things, so you largely have their cooperation with that. But when it comes to giving a whistleblower to the offender for punishment, despite the whistleblower clearly being in the right, it isn't going to be such an easy sell.
The point is about your laws being clearly abusive. That's why they're only good as long as you've got the ability to force others to follow them.
Oh wow, no, I never realized you were protecting your own. Well okay then... I guess that justifies anything. While that may be natural, for sociopathic lying fucks, to object to something while doing it themselves, you're still hypocritical assholes for doing it.
I commented on alleged crimes commited by Osama, not how he should be treated for it.
But you're sure he's guilty before the charges were ever officially read, let alone proven.
Yeah, because all we have is one "conveniently bad confession video" or "coincidental and hearsay".
Yeah, that's all we have. There are rumors that they have evidence showing Osama is guilty but there were similar rumors of intel that would show Saddam had WMDs. We needed to get him into court, preferably an international one, and figure it out. It'd do us all a lot of good to get the mechanism for war-crimes trials out of storage and use them properly now and then.
The USA is provably fighting a war on false pretenses. The world really needs to be able to see their information before we just trust them. Especially after Wikileaks helped prove how habitually they lie.
Don't worry, you can always cover ears and sing LALALA. Try it, your fellows from other side practice it everyday. Loon is loon.
Yeah, damn those who ask for evidence, they're such loons.
No, you miss the point. This isn't about projecting force whatsoever at all. This is about agreed to submissions from other countries in which you will find that they will willingly give you up to the other country.
And your request has as much weight as your military/financial clout. The rest of the world benefits heavily from having the USA's secrets revealed and won't help you except as forced. See the rest of your jingoistic and self-serving statements for the reasons.
You simply cannot work to violate most of the more serious laws in one country and within the jurisdiction of that country and claim exemption because of a technicality. You couldn't do that long before the US was ever a country and you will not be able to do that long after is stops being one. The entire "they're across the border, they got away with it" bullcrap only exists in Hollywood movies. The reality of it is much different.
Those are two different scenarios. In your scenario a bad-guy commits a crime and flees. In this case Assange is rumored to have done something that was not a crime anywhere else and you're saying your law supersedes that. By that logic a Saudi citizen coming to the USA and buying a beer and a porno mag is opening the US retailer up to extradition to Saudi Arabia.
I don't doubt that your law says this, I'm just saying it's clearly abusive and only works while you're powerful.
The problem with your rules, and do you ever have a bunch, is that they only apply when convenient.
And your point is what? This discussion was about the long arm jurisdiction extending to Assange, not double standards.
The point is about your laws being clearly abusive. That's why they're only good as long as you've got the ability to force others to follow them.
If a US serviceman was treated like the Gitmo-detainees have been the USA would cry and call torture, screaming about the barbarity of the enemy, etc.
And yes, it's natural to object to treatment of your own people while stating whatever it takes to preserver the percieved safety of your own. Do you see a common thread there? IF not, let me spell it out, they both end with protecting or attempting to protect your own people.
Oh wow, no, I never realized you were protecting your own. Well okay then... I guess that justifies anything.
While that may be natural, for sociopathic lying fucks, to object to something while doing it themselves, you're still hypocritical assholes for doing it.
The USA took its freedom back largely through un-uniformed guerrilla combat and yet now wants to deny rights to combatants for failing to wear uniforms. It wouldn't matter what Assange did, or how great the benefits to the world, you'd still find some rule to justify whatever you planned.
Well, here is where you would be completely wrong. First, the vast majority of the revolutionary soldiers were uniformed soldiers.
When convenient. Uniforms and badges of rank help your side direct the battle. But when the opportunity came to be more effective otherwise, they did.
Furthermore, these so called rights you are talking about didn't even exist during the US revolutionary war. They were inventions of the 19th century.
Pathetic excuses. You gained your freedom by fighting that way and yet now use any technicality against those fighting with similar methods.
You support and justify the wars - even post revelation of Bush's lies, you can take the blame for them.
And this just shows how willfully ignorant and biased you are.
That I expect your day will come? You make sure of it with every word you say. Not by anything I do, but by world perception of you as immoral thugs.
No, I'm simply willing to participate in whatever defense I think is needed. I don't need jingoistic thugs and their "with us or against us" mentality to do it for me.
You on the other hand are a fear-motivated simpleton.
The best software for the end-user wins under BSD. If it's the open-source version, great. If a company wants to put millions into an effort to make something better and wants to get paid for it, great too.
Ridiculous. The market often backs the worst software for the user, in terms of stability, capability, lock-down, and sometimes UI. Media tools are one example, office applications another. With open source available at least users own the IP they use and can maintain it like any asset, even in the absence of the original author.
The best software for the developers wins under GPL. End-users be damned. "It'll do that when you learn to code, or I get around to it."
Are you allergic to thinking? Do you believe companies exist to freely give users features? You get those in the upgrade, for which you pay, if the feature doesn't hurt any of the company's other revenue streams.
With open source you have the choice to pay for upgrades by commissioning them. The end-user has a choice to take direct control over their tools, even if they have to hire someone to do it. But that's comfortable for most people and companies. You can install your own storm windows but few people do it.
GPL means you're scared of competition and someone really doing something useful but expensive to write with your code that requires paid developers and a price tag.
Hah. The GPL means you're not only okay with competition but are willing to give them a leg up by looking at/using your code.
But there's no reason to give these companies something for free. If the code is useful enough to base a closed-source commercial product off of then it's useful enough for them to pay for. With the GPL you simply take payment in kind, getting their changes back and having software you can interoperate with.
the same or other individual(s) wrote this press release.
Some individual must have, yes, or many. I imagine was composed on IRC or in a wiki by anyone who cared to drop by. But it's all fairly obvious.
How is such a spokesperson identified? Does the rest of the group agree with it?
Usually by not being booed out of the IRC channel when they respond to a reporter's question.
As for who agrees with it, anyone who wants. There's no party line. Many 'Anonymous' from the Scientology stuff couldn't care less about Sony and while they haven't burnt their membership cards they just don't participate unless they care to.
Who are they? Why are they? How are decisions made?
"They" aren't. Aren't an entity. Just a bunch of people who hang out discussing things. If someone starts doing something that looks like fun sometimes others join them.
Can we call their decision making process the ultimate form of democracy, where anyone has an equal vote?
It is a participatory democracy. Everyone has as much vote as they have energy. You do what you want, others may or may not help or hinder.
Or are there actually individuals with more influence than others - "all are equal, but some are more equal than others"?
Of course, some individuals always have more influence than others - the proof is that some people (not just anonymous members) hardly say anything and of course have little influence. But it isn't like one person gaining power in the organization and issuing orders, influence is being able to explain how to yank Scientology's chain and how much fun it is so that others want to do the same.
All I can tell is that this group is highly idealistic, and of course mainly active in Internet related issues.
Almost everyone who hasn't had it beaten out of them, or who sees a chance, is idealistic. The anonymous tactics are quite powerful at combating many PR-sensitive organizations, thus many people see the chance to uphold their ideals.
It's remarkable how little is known about this movement, even though their communication is done out in the open, and they're happy to talk to the press.
Actually almost everything is known about Anonymous, as a whole, because it is only what you see. The 'members' wouldn't accept any inner cabal because there's no structure for identifying people or delegating authority, no leaders - just compelling goals.
And no matter how it ends up, if commercial vehicles get taxed you are going to see the prices of literally EVERYTHING go up overnight because everything in the US is at some point delivered by truck.
We may need more tax money, but this is not a good way to get it.
Why is reality-based pricing a bad thing? If trucked goods cost more then this should be seen at market and it will drive the development of trucking alternatives and less-damaging trucks.
I don't see why you think it'll hurt owner-operators, companies would have to pay the same extra costs.
Depends on which government and where. It's certainly appropriate for the Libyan government and anyone supporting them. It's probably valid in Bahrain, and Yemen. It'd be reasonable anywhere the government was killing people, especially in large numbers.
I see your standards of proof are so low you'll sign off on the death penalty without a trial or hearing the evidence.
We *know* Bush ordered the USA to war using carefully selected and doctored intel, knowing it to be far less likely then not. All we have to link Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks is coincidental and hearsay. A conveniently bad confession video that was never fully displayed or available for vetting.
I've seen such seemingly slam-dunk trials in the USA be totally wrong, why should I assume this must be different?
Slashdot Mirror
God is supposed to be alive and active now. If god's real you should hear prayers when using its right name, when facing the right direction, if you're deserving, or in need of saving, etc, and not at other times.
Why on earth would you want to use religion for predictive power?
It (yours) predicts an afterlife. Many people are hoping that's right.
You're still failing to understand the NOMA concept.
NOMA isn't a concept, it's a dodge. It's the crack in god of the cracks.
You only hope there's a non-overlapping area because religion does abysmally at predicting anything and you so desperately want it to be right. You need a "there is no wrong here" zone where the afterlife and other concept can survive, unassailed by the forces that have removed the Earth from the center of the universe.
Fail. Utter D&D fail.
Thankfully. Now if that was GURPS I may be disappointed.
Those were cleric spells I was referring to. You could tell because animate is a 5th level spell for arcane casters, but 3rd for clerics. And, you know, because Res and True Res are cleric only spells.
Sure sure. But in brushing that off you ignore the illusionist theory. There's no reason to assume a rare high-level spell was involved when low-level trickery would have worked. Or, did someone cast a scrying that revealed a resurrection was cast? And who verified that?
You're buying their propaganda, then. Fundamentalists do not "attempt to believe the entire thing" - they are way worse than the cafeteria Christians in normal denominations. They actively believe things that are against the Bible, and then try to retcon everything to match their twisted view of scripture.
As opposed to the non-fundies who actively believe things that are against the bible, and then try to retcon everything to match their twisted view of scripture?
Fundies just believe that, if it's the word of god, or directed by god, that it's not their place to decide what it says. They still do find meaning between the lines but it's better than the usual religious person who decides something doesn't mean what it literally says.
And you're one of the mainstream ones of course, not the lunatic fringe! Do you feel more comfortable thinking that others believe as you do? Is this a source of strength for you?
Troll.
Not at all. That's the nature of religion. You played your part perfectly. Marginalize the dissenters, cement yourself into the main body of the group.
Anti-science ramblings? What the fuck? Have you paid no attention to what I wrote, or are you somehow still confusing "Christian" = "somehow everything he writes is anti-science"?
Well, to some degree that is true. If you're a christian you're going to see god behind everything, without investigating, just as a default. You have no evidence for the bible, or at least none that conflicting religions don't also share (ie, visions, etc) and yet you believe.
But I meant this NOMA thing and the retarded idea that you get some protected playground to go have god in that doesn't interact with anything these mean science people talk about so you're always right, or at least there's no evidence to ever indicate wrongness.
Protect yourself? Hah. Only because you live in a safe country. One made safe due to the military.
[...]
You're so far off the mark of my political beliefs that it's ridiculous. Fear isn't even close to being a major motivating factor for me. What do I have to be afraid of? I live in pretty safe place.
Not at all. You're afraid of just living without a standing army. Of having to be responsible for yourself and others.
My main concerns are for us to quit invading places without good reason, and to start thinking rationally about our future in a world of dwindling resources in certain areas.
Why, simply because it's not profitable or because of all the killing?
As far as Osama is concerned, he was at war with us, he killed thousands and promised to kill more.
No, you were at war with HIM, You put military bases in his country.
And yes, he (supposedly) killed thousands. But in trying to catch him you guys killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions (when counting sanctions too).
You actually create tens if not hundreds of practically unsupported hypotheses every day, and make decisions based on them. If that's not a form of belief, I don't know what is.
You're right, you don't. It isn't.
If one of my hypotheses is proven wrong I adjust. I don't sit and "believe" contrary to reality, I adjust my model and continue.
That you think some of it is a parable just means you're egotistical enough to judge what you believe to be divinely inspired.
How ironic that this comment just means that you're egotistical enough to judge others' moderate religious beliefs egotistical.
Being right about something isn't the same as judging someone for it.
You are lying, boy. You really should think up before stating things that can be defeated by 5-minute google search.
Things that would stand up in court. Could you convict a rich American on such evidence?
If you've got a link, to anything that existed before the raid, that meets that standard I'd like to hear it. Because everything I've seen is weak, coincidental, or hearsay.
Nah, I call you loon because you first ask for evidence and later pretend that said evidence does not exist, is forged and all of that classic excuses of conspiracy theorist crap.
All I ask is that it would stand up in court.
BTW new, previously unseen videos straight from compound was released. Surely these are also forged, riiiight? Oh, how easy life conspiracy loons have.
Videos of Osama buying box-cutters for 9/11? Or just videos of a raid on the compound.
If you go through school without applying the new things you're learning outside of classwork, are you going to learn much?
Why are you getting into coding if you don't have anything to code?
Because technical problems can be overcome but patents cannot, or not without inventing less efficient methods.
Why get involved in something if you aren't going to be able to use your work? Best to figure it out early.
It's not that, it's just that any non-scientific studying isn't studying. However, even a baby shoving things into its mouth is performing science, even if a poorly documented form.
Religious "study" is navel gazing followed by inventing an answer. That's why religion has absolutely no predictive power.
Actually farming methods are to blame, they multiplied the prions a billion-fold by grinding infected animals into animal feed.
While you get +1 internets for being the first non-anonymous coward to respond to me (I mean, seriously, people - it doesn't take a lot of courage to post as an atheist on /.),
That your anti-science ramblings don't attract many registered users is more likely a comment about you.
really it's just a show of ignorance when atheists intentionally (or unintentionally) confuse religion and cult,
Nobody has been able to draw a non-self serving distinction between the two. Besides, even if there is a theoretical difference, in practice almost all religious groups employ unethical (cult-like) manipulative tactics. That used-car salesmen use the same tactics is no excuse.
or conflate fundamentalists with mainstream Christians.
Hah. And you're one of the mainstream ones of course, not the lunatic fringe! Do you feel more comfortable thinking that others believe as you do? Is this a source of strength for you?
Oh, and it's easy to tell fundamentalists. They're the ones with the integrity to attempt to believe the entire thing, not just the comfortable and easy bits.
Likewise, it's not funny when atheists say that Jesus was a zombie Jew. It just reveals their utter ignorance about the difference between Animate Dead (3rd level) and Resurrection (7th level spell).
Even if we grant for fact the words in any version of the bible, he wasn't observed doing anything a well-commanded zombie and handful of first-level spells couldn't do. Your 14/18th level mage theory assumes a lower-level mage, or even a lowly illusionist, couldn't have produced the same effects.
Only religious people seeking to distance themselves from other religions try to draw those lines.
Pushing faith (ignorance) using guilt, fear, peer pressure is all religion is about.
Any belief in anything in the bible is roughly equivalent. It's belief that's the issue.
That you think some of it is a parable just means you're egotistical enough to judge what you believe to be divinely inspired.
To be christian requires belief in christ, which is not rational. Have you ever double-blind tested for god?
Also, game theory can tell you when to love your enemies.
And your request has as much weight as your military/financial clout. The rest of the world benefits heavily from having the USA's secrets revealed and won't help you except as forced. See the rest of your jingoistic and self-serving statements for the reasons.
It's been this way since before the US was even a country. What in the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with military or financial clout and everything to do with rules and law. Do you realize that you are attempting to argue that it's because of something before that something ever existed. I mean fuck, use the brain sitting on top of your head for a minute.
What, your strawman doesn't make sense? Unpossible!
You say it's to do with rules and laws, and are right. But do you think laws just uphold themselves? There are countries full of people who are already re-evaluating the worth of treaties with the USA, especially given how self-serving and dishonest they've appeared lately. If those rules were applied to someone who appeared to be a real criminal, Kadaffi say, there'd be little question of other countries helping, but when applied to someone who merely exposed the lies of criminals, no.
Unless you plan to go to war with the New Zealand they're going to be asking themselves what's in it for them to sit back and let you take Assange because not only have you recently fucked them over with copyright treaties but as the 'little guys' they have far more to gain than lose from Wikileaks' revelations.
Those are two different scenarios. In your scenario a bad-guy commits a crime and flees. In this case Assange is rumored to have done something that was not a crime anywhere else and you're saying your law supersedes that. By that logic a Saudi citizen coming to the USA and buying a beer and a porno mag is opening the US retailer up to extradition to Saudi Arabia.
Listen, I posted a link about a guy who never stepped foot in the US and got deported to face charges.
Sure, for something the rest of the world doesn't consider ludicrous. Or self-serving for the USA to be trying to extradite someone for.
Most people have an anti-crime bias, but crime as they see it - harm to good people. They'll bend the rules to punish those criminals, but not people who break laws standing up to bullies.
Actually, there was two of them. If you somehow think it's different and you are still refusing to see the reality we live in, then I'm done here.
You were never here, in the sense of actually reading. Your proof isn't as convincing as you want it to be because you're trying to prove the wrong thing. You're stuck on showing that there are treaties. The point is that treaties need to be mutual or enforced and treaties with the USA are rarely mutual and your ability to enforce them decreases rapidly.
Oh, and it's not just my law, it's international treaty that says that. More precisely, In this case it's a treaty with Assange's home country which I already provided a link to..
It's in their interests to rid the world of murderers and bank robbers, etc, and even a few other things, so you largely have their cooperation with that. But when it comes to giving a whistleblower to the offender for punishment, despite the whistleblower clearly being in the right, it isn't going to be such an easy sell.
The point is about your laws being clearly abusive. That's why they're only good as long as you've got the ability to force others to follow them.
Oh wow, no, I never realized you were protecting your own. Well okay then... I guess that justifies anything. While that may be natural, for sociopathic lying fucks, to object to something while doing it themselves, you're still hypocritical assholes for doing it.
Its natural for everyone.
It is how animals behave, and
How about we sterilize the racists?
By which I mean you should be either castrated by brick or killed outright. Have a nice day.
I commented on alleged crimes commited by Osama, not how he should be treated for it.
But you're sure he's guilty before the charges were ever officially read, let alone proven.
Yeah, because all we have is one "conveniently bad confession video" or "coincidental and hearsay".
Yeah, that's all we have. There are rumors that they have evidence showing Osama is guilty but there were similar rumors of intel that would show Saddam had WMDs. We needed to get him into court, preferably an international one, and figure it out. It'd do us all a lot of good to get the mechanism for war-crimes trials out of storage and use them properly now and then.
The USA is provably fighting a war on false pretenses. The world really needs to be able to see their information before we just trust them. Especially after Wikileaks helped prove how habitually they lie.
Don't worry, you can always cover ears and sing LALALA. Try it, your fellows from other side practice it everyday. Loon is loon.
Yeah, damn those who ask for evidence, they're such loons.
Whoops, Bin Laden was metric. That's probably why it crashed.
No, you miss the point. This isn't about projecting force whatsoever at all. This is about agreed to submissions from other countries in which you will find that they will willingly give you up to the other country.
And your request has as much weight as your military/financial clout. The rest of the world benefits heavily from having the USA's secrets revealed and won't help you except as forced. See the rest of your jingoistic and self-serving statements for the reasons.
You simply cannot work to violate most of the more serious laws in one country and within the jurisdiction of that country and claim exemption because of a technicality. You couldn't do that long before the US was ever a country and you will not be able to do that long after is stops being one. The entire "they're across the border, they got away with it" bullcrap only exists in Hollywood movies. The reality of it is much different.
Those are two different scenarios. In your scenario a bad-guy commits a crime and flees. In this case Assange is rumored to have done something that was not a crime anywhere else and you're saying your law supersedes that. By that logic a Saudi citizen coming to the USA and buying a beer and a porno mag is opening the US retailer up to extradition to Saudi Arabia.
I don't doubt that your law says this, I'm just saying it's clearly abusive and only works while you're powerful.
The problem with your rules, and do you ever have a bunch, is that they only apply when convenient.
And your point is what? This discussion was about the long arm jurisdiction extending to Assange, not double standards.
The point is about your laws being clearly abusive. That's why they're only good as long as you've got the ability to force others to follow them.
If a US serviceman was treated like the Gitmo-detainees have been the USA would cry and call torture, screaming about the barbarity of the enemy, etc.
And yes, it's natural to object to treatment of your own people while stating whatever it takes to preserver the percieved safety of your own. Do you see a common thread there? IF not, let me spell it out, they both end with protecting or attempting to protect your own people.
Oh wow, no, I never realized you were protecting your own. Well okay then... I guess that justifies anything.
While that may be natural, for sociopathic lying fucks, to object to something while doing it themselves, you're still hypocritical assholes for doing it.
The USA took its freedom back largely through un-uniformed guerrilla combat and yet now wants to deny rights to combatants for failing to wear uniforms. It wouldn't matter what Assange did, or how great the benefits to the world, you'd still find some rule to justify whatever you planned.
Well, here is where you would be completely wrong. First, the vast majority of the revolutionary soldiers were uniformed soldiers.
When convenient. Uniforms and badges of rank help your side direct the battle. But when the opportunity came to be more effective otherwise, they did.
Furthermore, these so called rights you are talking about didn't even exist during the US revolutionary war. They were inventions of the 19th century.
Pathetic excuses. You gained your freedom by fighting that way and yet now use any technicality against those fighting with similar methods.
You support and justify the wars - even post revelation of Bush's lies, you can take the blame for them.
And this just shows how willfully ignorant and biased you are.
That I expect your day will come? You make sure of it with every word you say. Not by anything I do, but by world perception of you as immoral thugs.
Firs
No, I'm simply willing to participate in whatever defense I think is needed. I don't need jingoistic thugs and their "with us or against us" mentality to do it for me.
You on the other hand are a fear-motivated simpleton.
The best software for the end-user wins under BSD. If it's the open-source version, great. If a company wants to put millions into an effort to make something better and wants to get paid for it, great too.
Ridiculous. The market often backs the worst software for the user, in terms of stability, capability, lock-down, and sometimes UI. Media tools are one example, office applications another. With open source available at least users own the IP they use and can maintain it like any asset, even in the absence of the original author.
The best software for the developers wins under GPL. End-users be damned. "It'll do that when you learn to code, or I get around to it."
Are you allergic to thinking? Do you believe companies exist to freely give users features? You get those in the upgrade, for which you pay, if the feature doesn't hurt any of the company's other revenue streams.
With open source you have the choice to pay for upgrades by commissioning them. The end-user has a choice to take direct control over their tools, even if they have to hire someone to do it. But that's comfortable for most people and companies. You can install your own storm windows but few people do it.
GPL means you're scared of competition and someone really doing something useful but expensive to write with your code that requires paid developers and a price tag.
Hah. The GPL means you're not only okay with competition but are willing to give them a leg up by looking at/using your code.
But there's no reason to give these companies something for free. If the code is useful enough to base a closed-source commercial product off of then it's useful enough for them to pay for. With the GPL you simply take payment in kind, getting their changes back and having software you can interoperate with.
the same or other individual(s) wrote this press release.
Some individual must have, yes, or many. I imagine was composed on IRC or in a wiki by anyone who cared to drop by. But it's all fairly obvious.
How is such a spokesperson identified? Does the rest of the group agree with it?
Usually by not being booed out of the IRC channel when they respond to a reporter's question.
As for who agrees with it, anyone who wants. There's no party line. Many 'Anonymous' from the Scientology stuff couldn't care less about Sony and while they haven't burnt their membership cards they just don't participate unless they care to.
Who are they? Why are they? How are decisions made?
"They" aren't. Aren't an entity. Just a bunch of people who hang out discussing things. If someone starts doing something that looks like fun sometimes others join them.
Can we call their decision making process the ultimate form of democracy, where anyone has an equal vote?
It is a participatory democracy. Everyone has as much vote as they have energy. You do what you want, others may or may not help or hinder.
Or are there actually individuals with more influence than others - "all are equal, but some are more equal than others"?
Of course, some individuals always have more influence than others - the proof is that some people (not just anonymous members) hardly say anything and of course have little influence. But it isn't like one person gaining power in the organization and issuing orders, influence is being able to explain how to yank Scientology's chain and how much fun it is so that others want to do the same.
All I can tell is that this group is highly idealistic, and of course mainly active in Internet related issues.
Almost everyone who hasn't had it beaten out of them, or who sees a chance, is idealistic. The anonymous tactics are quite powerful at combating many PR-sensitive organizations, thus many people see the chance to uphold their ideals.
It's remarkable how little is known about this movement, even though their communication is done out in the open, and they're happy to talk to the press.
Actually almost everything is known about Anonymous, as a whole, because it is only what you see. The 'members' wouldn't accept any inner cabal because there's no structure for identifying people or delegating authority, no leaders - just compelling goals.
And no matter how it ends up, if commercial vehicles get taxed you are going to see the prices of literally EVERYTHING go up overnight because everything in the US is at some point delivered by truck.
We may need more tax money, but this is not a good way to get it.
Why is reality-based pricing a bad thing? If trucked goods cost more then this should be seen at market and it will drive the development of trucking alternatives and less-damaging trucks.
I don't see why you think it'll hurt owner-operators, companies would have to pay the same extra costs.
Fuck the government.
You've outed yourself as a nut.
Depends on which government and where. It's certainly appropriate for the Libyan government and anyone supporting them. It's probably valid in Bahrain, and Yemen. It'd be reasonable anywhere the government was killing people, especially in large numbers.
I see your standards of proof are so low you'll sign off on the death penalty without a trial or hearing the evidence.
We *know* Bush ordered the USA to war using carefully selected and doctored intel, knowing it to be far less likely then not. All we have to link Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks is coincidental and hearsay. A conveniently bad confession video that was never fully displayed or available for vetting.
I've seen such seemingly slam-dunk trials in the USA be totally wrong, why should I assume this must be different?