And get your head out of your ass, there is no need for such arrogant pomposity, it does you no favours.
I apologize. But if you can believe me, I honestly didn't mean it as bad as it seems in hindsight nor did I mean to target it to you - I used word "someone" to try and make it noticable, but that too, in hindsight, doesn't look that good. Finally I meant it with a grain of humor - obviously I failed, the end part was out of line and I sincerely apologize for it.
As for rest, drinking, flip flopping, etc. - I hear what you are saying, but I know too little of these things you mention and am left wondering if it's more of flip flopping or is he simply a changed man?
Personally I was impressed - anyway, whether you disagree or agree with him you can't deny that he does not justify violent and criminal actions of Taliban. Oh, wait... I take it back, I'm sure someone can deny that - I've seen more astonishing blindness....and then it might be a bit complex for some people just wishing for simplified view on world and people to judge them:)
Thank you, saved me some work saying pretty much exactly what I wanted, except my country being Finland.
I probably wouldn't have written that myself though, I'm so tired with the arrogant yank attitude where their freedom is better than anyone else and where they are criticized the others surely must be doing the same if not worse... With no basis on reality of course.
I take offence too, but often they have managed to tire me so I just ignore them silently:/
Thanks, this quote was awesome and brought some light to my day by showing that there are still intelligent and good people among leaderships of world:) Also, I agreed with you already on your previous post (it pretty much said what I had thought about the link to supposedly "extremist views" just myself), but if I had any doubt about it this certainly must have wiped it all away:)
Regardless of what his opinions are on the military situation in Pakistan, I don't think it's appropriate for border guards to harass prominent foreign politicians at the US border, particularly not those who are relatively moderate, *even if they disagree with US foreign policy*.
Indeed, it's bad behavior and won't do anyone any good. I wonder who choose to pick him for questioning, as it seems apparent that it was done because of the drone opinions - not a randomly chosen check IMHO clearly.
I hear this claim about American superior freedom of speech - I don't know what that is about and how is it superior to which European country (ie. my country, Finland), nobody has ever told me but they sure talk about it a lot. If anything, from your news I've gotten the impression that while protected by constitution freedom of speech is often attacked indirectly by causing wrongful hindrance/harm to someone with "wrong kinda free speech" - seems to me TFA is an example of such case, and on political (and social too?) matters.
That fact that Fox news isn't reflexively anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-conservative, and anti-republican...
*snip*
Oh come on, seriously! You got to educate yourself - Thing is, in USA our biggest left wing party in Finland would probably be labeled in your news as some communist extremist nutjobs - yet they are far from anti-capitalist (except for free market nutjobs - won't comment on the rest) but also support many socialist values. Most of Europe live happily in mixed systems while your country has only two right wing parties and strong pretence that one of them is communist, anti-capitalist, anti... Don't blame us for that.
Was Fox News the one who got the permission to lie in news? Yes, well, if this is how USA has better freedom of speech then I don't envy you. At all.
I might be wrong as I don't know everything that is happening, but I really don't see USA becoming like "European style system" - whatever it means anyway (I could assume you meant EU and just as well that you said European because you meant something else...).
I read your news. I know how you treat even your own people. I don't want to be robbed and/or bullied ("questioned") when I arrive to another country as tourist with my money. I would be afraid of accidentally running into situation, whether my own fault or not, where I would be questioned by your police officers. And much more... And all the above are related (some more, some less) to post-9/11 era.
PATRIOT act and guantamo bay are just tip of the ice berg of ridiculousness, much like the freedom fries cry but unfortunately this has actually harmed innocent people. I'm not afraid of PATRIOT act that much, I know it's not as easy to actually end in guantamo as the law really enables. Although it is a creepy thought and I already know that if customs got hinted of my sometimes very colorful opinions about US government (and what should be done to it/by it) I would likely have to suffer from long and uncomfortable interrogration before possibly let in (without my laptop that I won't likely get back).
According to even your own media there are a lot of issues, and reasons to protest / boycott your country, that have been created since and because of 9/11.
Guantanamo is a really bad joke by country that spreads democrazy and all things good to others even if they have to spread it with guns and missiles - but it's not a likely threat for average person. Still won't be giving you any less criticism about it - it's one of many things that are just plain wrong in your country.
You should fix these things, not try to hide them behind your opinions of some group(s) (ie. Europeans) supposed views.
Seeing how things are with USA today it sounds quite convenient and possibly useful for many... Of course it's a sad day when even average people have to even consider the possibility of not being allowed in another (so called) 1st world country - as well as having to worry about your personal property (like laptops, cell phones, etc.) getting stolen by said country "in the name of homeland security", etc...
Shooting hostile military aircraft of another country in your country own airspace is not crime, unless criminalized by the law of country which is doing the shooting. Yeah, I know, you yanks love to think that you are allowed to fly your craft inside any and every nations airspace (provided it's not too big for even you) and shout in anger if it's shot down, all while willing to shoot any outside military aircraft (or civilian if unauthorized and not responding, etc.) and claim you have right to do so.
And you would have the right to shoot them down, but you are demanding to be treated differently when you are doing the flying - you can do this, but it's not because "boohoo, it's a crime" but rather because you (=your country, USA) are the school playground bully that those you bully won't likely reteliate in any way that would really bother you. You (=you, the writer) are an ass trying to pull this crap about you having some kind of higher moral ground when the simple truth here is: you are the agressor.
Reality check on the "Threat for US airspace" is on place also - seriously there is no reason to expect any trouble from this, if there was then you can bet he would most likely been there for way longer than hour and, seriously, he wouldn't have been questioned about his opinions on X that were most obviously well known to those doing the questioning - really, if he would be considered a real serious threat and this is how it was handled then you're airport/customs security is a humongous joke (way more so than it already is) at best. I mean, really, do you consider it a job well done to detain a person and ask him about his opinions on something you already know answer to and then letting him/her continue after 2 hours? Nope, this is really not a matter of national security.
And "violent anti-American sentiment"? Seriously, yankee boy, defending your country within your country against attacks executed from outside your country is not "violent anti-American" anything. If this is your measure on what makes a country "violent anti-YourCountry" then what should your country be called? And don't start with your cry for "nobel reasons", in this light your reasons don't matter a shit - you are the attacker judging your target for defending themselves. That may feel OK for you, but you have to be really dumb to think it would seem logical to anyone with half brain (and not already taken same view as you, though that should be said with half brain;) ).
have you stopped to consider whether its appropriate for a candidate for Prime Minister to attend fundraisers in the "evil" country he is railing against?
Yes. I see no problem there as this has nothing to do with attacking against USA, just defending their own airspace from outside military intrusion - and nothing else. Everything I know about this person indicates that he want's peace and good relations with your country - even despite the obvious problem of your country attacking his country. I would give quite a bit of credit and respect for him. Apparently the rest of the world doesn't side with your views either - just some part of US population really...
You know, I simply stopped buying DVD's after they passed similar law in Finland. And yes, I choose to break the law too - hell, technically it's bigger crime now to watch your legally bought DVD's here than to pirate them in readily ripped format... If the legal system is mindless it should not expect much sense from me either.
Unlike America, European regulators take their privacy seriously. They are mostly independant and don't have to bow down to political pressure. You seem to be confusing "not captured by corporate interests" with "just another extortion racket."
Having been taught from birth that their nation is the beacon of freedom and greatest nation in world and then been fuckep up their asses by corporations and the government together for all their lives Americans have hard time understanding how this could even be.
It is insulting to me and the people who died that day when people make up bullshit when the truth was bad enough.
So why not stop the BS about melting from airplane crash and crashing from small fire - no matter what you believe, leave the BS out of your explanation even if it leaves something unexplained.
People who disagree don't do it to insult or disrespect people who died innocently, even heroically.
Good points... I was pondering on the quick finding of one of the alleged terrorists passports after hearing of it from finnish news - way before there were any theories. So quick, too quick, too easy, too unbelievable it surviving intact from the explosion and then in all the chaos getting discovered and focused on so quickly - also asked myself how/why exactly they were so certain that the passport was of one terrorist, ie...
But that didn't prove anything, I know that. It's just one problem in the equation with multiple things. I know there are conspiracy theorists that are nuts (note: believing there are conspiracies or even believing that you know of one does not make you conspiracy theorist - like interest in philosophies don't make you philosofist. Not believing that there are conspiracies / labeling anyone who even thinks of possibility of conspiracy on something makes you deranged from reality though), but this one is so huge claim that it's rather easy to understand people considering it too unrealistic and rather accept bunch of unexplained stuff than possibility of something else...
One thing I don't believe is that there is normally ever a day when the whole NORAD is doing training and no planes are there to intercept at all. Add in the probability of the attack happening on that very day, the confusion from some training that happened to describe similar situation (well, it's NORAD, but I mean counting all together), etc. and I just can't accept that.
Label me as a nutjob, but don't compare me to "no moon visit" theorists - you can't claim that I don't have anything worth of realistic thought at all, which is the case in moon conspiracy theory. Also comparing people to lunatic group X and putting stuff like "but the crashing to pancake, boohoo" and "*sniff* melted metal..." in quotes to mock them sounds a little funny when the stuff in the quotes really does beg an explanation.
P.S....not claiming to know what the truth behind all of this is but not believing it's how the official explanation goes.
I don't know which "European legislation" you are talking about, but even though I only have the impression that it's the norm around Europe I do know for fact that we have "fair use" in Finland, even if the name differs. My understanding is that this is the case in most places.
Your copyright system then again, well there are lot of other things than just fair use to consider wethever it should be torn apart.
For every person that decides to buy the album because they heard the song on that videa, someone else decided not to buy the album and just listen to the video.
I very much doubt your conclusion on this - what, if anything, do you base this "guessformation"?
I think the point on UNIX with "everything" is to take it as "everything that makes sense" - if we took "everything" too literally (not only on this), what would it really mean anyway? I doubt nobody can describe a solution where literally everything is a file even in theory - you got to use common sense with these things, but then the wise guys will begin...
Excellent post - just wanted to correct your wondering about cats... They, presumably, sounded just the same as now (at least what you wrote gives no reason to think otherwise), but they didn't walk silently before that and now they do (cats are really eerie this way);)
That, Sir, describes nothing at all. There is a long excellent reply to you below already, but just to put it in one sentence: The fact that there is a conference on some random thing, or even a (random) philosophy, describes what exactly?
Au contraire. We need MORE people, not fewer. We need more people thinking about solving big problems like how to get off this rock and sustainably out into space and out of this solar system.
Population growth leads into percentage of those living in poverty increasing - sure, in a country like Finland where I live with free education and social security system guaranteeing that your parents poor income doesn't prevent you from getting good nutrition and same opportunity of education as rich kids it's OK, but this system is also depending on population not growing too large, but in countries like USA and other (officially) 3rd world countries you will just get more poor people who can't afford education. Very few genius came from them, and the larger the percentage of people in poverty grow the less will be given them by your already poor social security and healthcare system.
The level of geniuses would thus decrease, but as most come from rich families who can afford to put their kids through college and university it's not that much - if it weren't as the growing amount of poor will reflect even to lives of rich.
No kid from ghetto or trailor park with motor neurone disease that is related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis will have possibilities to become worlds no. 1 theoretical physicist. Well, in Finland he/she would at least have a chance, we have one school where even most handicapped will receive higher level education and we have wide support systems to provide 24/7 assistants, equipment required to move, speak, etc. for even most handicapped and unfortunate who's family have no money to provide such special kid even through childhood on their own and who is in USA likely to end up tie in bed for the rest of his/her life in some institution.
You're idea sucks. You want more brilliant people? Provide them education - consider how many people live in USA that simply can't reach the level of education needed for more than simple physical labor... you know, it's not because they have no potential. You're solution does nothing to make this better, but increases number of people who won't get to benefit from higher level education.
By the way, this planet can easily support 50 Billion humans and the hockey stick graph has been proven wrong. The population curve is dropping fast.
No way America would risk breaking relations with China - if your claim is correct and China needs Americas food exports, then the more devastating USA cutting exports to China would be the more strongly would China respond (I'm not talking about war, just business).
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize. But if you can believe me, I honestly didn't mean it as bad as it seems in hindsight nor did I mean to target it to you - I used word "someone" to try and make it noticable, but that too, in hindsight, doesn't look that good.
Finally I meant it with a grain of humor - obviously I failed, the end part was out of line and I sincerely apologize for it.
As for rest, drinking, flip flopping, etc. - I hear what you are saying, but I know too little of these things you mention and am left wondering if it's more of flip flopping or is he simply a changed man?
Yeah, why don't you read his actual words (instead of 2 tiny quotes twisted into something he did not say)? Here:
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/eye-for-an-eye-will-not-solve-anything-1.1094629
Personally I was impressed - anyway, whether you disagree or agree with him you can't deny that he does not justify violent and criminal actions of Taliban. ...and then it might be a bit complex for some people just wishing for simplified view on world and people to judge them :)
Oh, wait... I take it back, I'm sure someone can deny that - I've seen more astonishing blindness.
Thank you, saved me some work saying pretty much exactly what I wanted, except my country being Finland.
I probably wouldn't have written that myself though, I'm so tired with the arrogant yank attitude where their freedom is better than anyone else and where they are criticized the others surely must be doing the same if not worse... With no basis on reality of course.
I take offence too, but often they have managed to tire me so I just ignore them silently :/
Thanks, this quote was awesome and brought some light to my day by showing that there are still intelligent and good people among leaderships of world :) :)
Also, I agreed with you already on your previous post (it pretty much said what I had thought about the link to supposedly "extremist views" just myself), but if I had any doubt about it this certainly must have wiped it all away
Indeed, it's bad behavior and won't do anyone any good. I wonder who choose to pick him for questioning, as it seems apparent that it was done because of the drone opinions - not a randomly chosen check IMHO clearly.
So they are really just like you? :) How nice...
Oh my, I forgot part from my post...
I hear this claim about American superior freedom of speech - I don't know what that is about and how is it superior to which European country (ie. my country, Finland), nobody has ever told me but they sure talk about it a lot.
If anything, from your news I've gotten the impression that while protected by constitution freedom of speech is often attacked indirectly by causing wrongful hindrance/harm to someone with "wrong kinda free speech" - seems to me TFA is an example of such case, and on political (and social too?) matters.
*snip*
Oh come on, seriously! You got to educate yourself - Thing is, in USA our biggest left wing party in Finland would probably be labeled in your news as some communist extremist nutjobs - yet they are far from anti-capitalist (except for free market nutjobs - won't comment on the rest) but also support many socialist values.
Most of Europe live happily in mixed systems while your country has only two right wing parties and strong pretence that one of them is communist, anti-capitalist, anti... Don't blame us for that.
Was Fox News the one who got the permission to lie in news? Yes, well, if this is how USA has better freedom of speech then I don't envy you. At all.
I might be wrong as I don't know everything that is happening, but I really don't see USA becoming like "European style system" - whatever it means anyway (I could assume you meant EU and just as well that you said European because you meant something else...).
I read your news. I know how you treat even your own people. I don't want to be robbed and/or bullied ("questioned") when I arrive to another country as tourist with my money. I would be afraid of accidentally running into situation, whether my own fault or not, where I would be questioned by your police officers. And much more...
And all the above are related (some more, some less) to post-9/11 era.
PATRIOT act and guantamo bay are just tip of the ice berg of ridiculousness, much like the freedom fries cry but unfortunately this has actually harmed innocent people. I'm not afraid of PATRIOT act that much, I know it's not as easy to actually end in guantamo as the law really enables. Although it is a creepy thought and I already know that if customs got hinted of my sometimes very colorful opinions about US government (and what should be done to it/by it) I would likely have to suffer from long and uncomfortable interrogration before possibly let in (without my laptop that I won't likely get back).
According to even your own media there are a lot of issues, and reasons to protest / boycott your country, that have been created since and because of 9/11.
Guantanamo is a really bad joke by country that spreads democrazy and all things good to others even if they have to spread it with guns and missiles - but it's not a likely threat for average person. Still won't be giving you any less criticism about it - it's one of many things that are just plain wrong in your country.
You should fix these things, not try to hide them behind your opinions of some group(s) (ie. Europeans) supposed views.
Seeing how things are with USA today it sounds quite convenient and possibly useful for many... Of course it's a sad day when even average people have to even consider the possibility of not being allowed in another (so called) 1st world country - as well as having to worry about your personal property (like laptops, cell phones, etc.) getting stolen by said country "in the name of homeland security", etc...
The world sure has changed for sad direction.
Did you drop in to explain how things currently are to discussion of how things should/shouldn't be, or did you have a subtle point that I missed?
Reminds me of the good-ol' "it is illegal and you might get arrested for it" "argument" on decriminalization of cannabis discussion.
Shooting hostile military aircraft of another country in your country own airspace is not crime, unless criminalized by the law of country which is doing the shooting.
Yeah, I know, you yanks love to think that you are allowed to fly your craft inside any and every nations airspace (provided it's not too big for even you) and shout in anger if it's shot down, all while willing to shoot any outside military aircraft (or civilian if unauthorized and not responding, etc.) and claim you have right to do so.
And you would have the right to shoot them down, but you are demanding to be treated differently when you are doing the flying - you can do this, but it's not because "boohoo, it's a crime" but rather because you (=your country, USA) are the school playground bully that those you bully won't likely reteliate in any way that would really bother you. You (=you, the writer) are an ass trying to pull this crap about you having some kind of higher moral ground when the simple truth here is: you are the agressor.
Reality check on the "Threat for US airspace" is on place also - seriously there is no reason to expect any trouble from this, if there was then you can bet he would most likely been there for way longer than hour and, seriously, he wouldn't have been questioned about his opinions on X that were most obviously well known to those doing the questioning - really, if he would be considered a real serious threat and this is how it was handled then you're airport/customs security is a humongous joke (way more so than it already is) at best.
I mean, really, do you consider it a job well done to detain a person and ask him about his opinions on something you already know answer to and then letting him/her continue after 2 hours? Nope, this is really not a matter of national security.
And "violent anti-American sentiment"? Seriously, yankee boy, defending your country within your country against attacks executed from outside your country is not "violent anti-American" anything. If this is your measure on what makes a country "violent anti-YourCountry" then what should your country be called? And don't start with your cry for "nobel reasons", in this light your reasons don't matter a shit - you are the attacker judging your target for defending themselves. That may feel OK for you, but you have to be really dumb to think it would seem logical to anyone with half brain (and not already taken same view as you, though that should be said with half brain ;) ).
Yes. I see no problem there as this has nothing to do with attacking against USA, just defending their own airspace from outside military intrusion - and nothing else. Everything I know about this person indicates that he want's peace and good relations with your country - even despite the obvious problem of your country attacking his country.
I would give quite a bit of credit and respect for him. Apparently the rest of the world doesn't side with your views either - just some part of US population really...
Thank you, Sir, for making sense - these "not news for nerds" whiners annoy me, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone...
...about the time some pro-Israelian fuck came and threw the anti-semite card...
*applause*
Obviously would mod you up if I had points :p
You know, I simply stopped buying DVD's after they passed similar law in Finland. And yes, I choose to break the law too - hell, technically it's bigger crime now to watch your legally bought DVD's here than to pirate them in readily ripped format... If the legal system is mindless it should not expect much sense from me either.
Unlike America, European regulators take their privacy seriously.
They are mostly independant and don't have to bow down to political pressure.
You seem to be confusing "not captured by corporate interests" with "just another extortion racket."
Having been taught from birth that their nation is the beacon of freedom and greatest nation in world and then been fuckep up their asses by corporations and the government together for all their lives Americans have hard time understanding how this could even be.
It is insulting to me and the people who died that day when people make up bullshit when the truth was bad enough.
So why not stop the BS about melting from airplane crash and crashing from small fire - no matter what you believe, leave the BS out of your explanation even if it leaves something unexplained.
People who disagree don't do it to insult or disrespect people who died innocently, even heroically.
Good points... I was pondering on the quick finding of one of the alleged terrorists passports after hearing of it from finnish news - way before there were any theories. So quick, too quick, too easy, too unbelievable it surviving intact from the explosion and then in all the chaos getting discovered and focused on so quickly - also asked myself how/why exactly they were so certain that the passport was of one terrorist, ie...
But that didn't prove anything, I know that. It's just one problem in the equation with multiple things. I know there are conspiracy theorists that are nuts (note: believing there are conspiracies or even believing that you know of one does not make you conspiracy theorist - like interest in philosophies don't make you philosofist. Not believing that there are conspiracies / labeling anyone who even thinks of possibility of conspiracy on something makes you deranged from reality though), but this one is so huge claim that it's rather easy to understand people considering it too unrealistic and rather accept bunch of unexplained stuff than possibility of something else...
One thing I don't believe is that there is normally ever a day when the whole NORAD is doing training and no planes are there to intercept at all. Add in the probability of the attack happening on that very day, the confusion from some training that happened to describe similar situation (well, it's NORAD, but I mean counting all together), etc. and I just can't accept that.
Label me as a nutjob, but don't compare me to "no moon visit" theorists - you can't claim that I don't have anything worth of realistic thought at all, which is the case in moon conspiracy theory. Also comparing people to lunatic group X and putting stuff like "but the crashing to pancake, boohoo" and "*sniff* melted metal..." in quotes to mock them sounds a little funny when the stuff in the quotes really does beg an explanation.
P.S. ...not claiming to know what the truth behind all of this is but not believing it's how the official explanation goes.
I don't know which "European legislation" you are talking about, but even though I only have the impression that it's the norm around Europe I do know for fact that we have "fair use" in Finland, even if the name differs. My understanding is that this is the case in most places.
Your copyright system then again, well there are lot of other things than just fair use to consider wethever it should be torn apart.
For every person that decides to buy the album because they heard the song on that videa, someone else decided not to buy the album and just listen to the video.
I very much doubt your conclusion on this - what, if anything, do you base this "guessformation"?
I think the point on UNIX with "everything" is to take it as "everything that makes sense" - if we took "everything" too literally (not only on this), what would it really mean anyway? I doubt nobody can describe a solution where literally everything is a file even in theory - you got to use common sense with these things, but then the wise guys will begin...
Excellent post - just wanted to correct your wondering about cats... They, presumably, sounded just the same as now (at least what you wrote gives no reason to think otherwise), but they didn't walk silently before that and now they do (cats are really eerie this way) ;)
That, Sir, describes nothing at all. There is a long excellent reply to you below already, but just to put it in one sentence:
The fact that there is a conference on some random thing, or even a (random) philosophy, describes what exactly?
I'll reply myself in one word: nothing.
Well said - unfortunately some people not only realize this, but also believe in this thing they believe to be an argument.
Au contraire. We need MORE people, not fewer. We need more people thinking about solving big problems like how to get off this rock and sustainably out into space and out of this solar system.
Population growth leads into percentage of those living in poverty increasing - sure, in a country like Finland where I live with free education and social security system guaranteeing that your parents poor income doesn't prevent you from getting good nutrition and same opportunity of education as rich kids it's OK, but this system is also depending on population not growing too large, but in countries like USA and other (officially) 3rd world countries you will just get more poor people who can't afford education. Very few genius came from them, and the larger the percentage of people in poverty grow the less will be given them by your already poor social security and healthcare system.
The level of geniuses would thus decrease, but as most come from rich families who can afford to put their kids through college and university it's not that much - if it weren't as the growing amount of poor will reflect even to lives of rich.
No kid from ghetto or trailor park with motor neurone disease that is related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis will have possibilities to become worlds no. 1 theoretical physicist. Well, in Finland he/she would at least have a chance, we have one school where even most handicapped will receive higher level education and we have wide support systems to provide 24/7 assistants, equipment required to move, speak, etc. for even most handicapped and unfortunate who's family have no money to provide such special kid even through childhood on their own and who is in USA likely to end up tie in bed for the rest of his/her life in some institution.
You're idea sucks. You want more brilliant people? Provide them education - consider how many people live in USA that simply can't reach the level of education needed for more than simple physical labor... you know, it's not because they have no potential. You're solution does nothing to make this better, but increases number of people who won't get to benefit from higher level education.
By the way, this planet can easily support 50 Billion humans and the hockey stick graph has been proven wrong. The population curve is dropping fast.
Citation needed * 2
No way America would risk breaking relations with China - if your claim is correct and China needs Americas food exports, then the more devastating USA cutting exports to China would be the more strongly would China respond (I'm not talking about war, just business).