Stop all this nonsense about justice because it just makes me feel like vomiting.
Who gave the US, UK, Russia, or other countries the right to intervene at will in the affirs of other countries?
People in the US and UK talk as if their countries have a god given right to put wrongs right and decide what is best for others, like if there was never a Vietnam, the Philipinnes never existed and the dead preseidents, democratically elected, of many Latin American countries did not lay dead thanks to the good offices of the respective US embassies coluding with their facourite dictators of the day.
So many people are incensed about the whole Irak fiasco not because they are supporters of Hussein, as many disingineous people claim as soon as anybody oposses this silly war, not because they don't want to see a better Iraq and Middle East, but because they are defending a principle: the principle that other countries have no business messing with the internal affairs of others.
For people in the US and the UK this is not understandable at all because they have not endured foreign occupation or partition of their countries, or have not lost a head of state or goverment at the hands of foreign powers.
Nevertheless there are many countries out there that have suffered this, and although to get rid of Hussein is a good thing by itself, when put in the context of international politicis for the future, it is an omminous sign. The US and, and its lackeys the mighty UK, Poland and Spain (that not surprisingly are doing all what they can to derail the European Union) have decided that might is right.
Lets say for the sake of argument that the US and co. had got this right. How are they going to be stopped when they get it wrong if there are no counterbalances at all?
If you are a country that may feel could be in the US's sight in the future, what would you do? Pile bombs I say, look at North Korea's example.
The US has introduced the law of the jungle in international politics, Hussein could have been brought down with the help of the countries that had misgivings and the full support of the UN, the problem is that for some reason the US and the UK where in a hurry to start this conflict. This hurrienes remains to be explained since there was no direct threat to the US or the UK (if there would have been any they would have been hit already).
Enough is what I say. Enough of a few countries feeling they own the world and can they do as they please. If people in those countries are prepared to support this then they are only abbeting an spiral of violence that will have no end.
Bush and co. are dreadful but they do not come even close to the brutality of Mr Hussein. Although they should respond for the dozens of innocent civilians that have died during their unilateralist adventures, that pales in comparision to what Hussein did, and they can at least claim some degree of legitimacy since most US people live in the blissful idea that their actions are making the word a safer place to be.
The very few pluses of Mr Hussein rule are heavily outweighted by the brutality that he enforced all around the region (lets remember that not only Iraq suffered under his rule, but also Iran, Iraq and Israel tasted at one point or another Mr Hussien's brutality), I concur in which it would be of paramount imprtance tha the role of many countries in abbeting this monster to rise should be fully explored, a fari trial would facilitate this. Most probably there is no country with a clean sheet regarding Iraq. All including the US, UK, France, Israel, Turkey, Iran and many others have a lot to answer for in regards to the misery of the Iraqi people.
Please explain how it comes in a sturated pipe the ftp server, just one IP address away, was still available, as several other machines is same subnet.
... that a fetus that can't feel or think, is not a human (i.e. during early stages, and certainly an embryo is not a human at all in my book).
So what is it sonny, do I impose my views on you or do you impose yours on me?
Or do we agree to disagree and trust that the goverment will facilitate that both do our own choices without being criminalized in an issue that is far from clear?
You don't want scisnce to dictate the issues, well, I don't want religion to dictate them neither, so once again sonnt, do I opress you or do you opress me?
It would not be more than a curiosity regarding your birth, like saying I was born by caesarean section or by in-vitro fertilization. Who will fscking care when it becomes common practice?
How do adopted children feel? I do not know, some great and greatful, some sad, some do not care. So your point is? Cloned individuals certainly would show as amny different responses.
Now you are entering the realms of trolling. By claiming that people wanting clones are mentaly unstable. Who are you? A psychologyst?
No matter how you want to spin it. If you follow that logic then every time a man masturbates he commits mass murder.
Even a very young fetus is not fully human since it has no capacity for abstract thought.
Once that capacity exists (with the formation of the neocrotex in the brain) then we could grant a fetus all the same rights as a fully formed human, as longs as those rights do not enter in conflict with the mother.
This is clearly a moral dilemma, and as such, it should be left to individuals to decide what to do according to their own values.
A goverment in a democratic society should not be dictating values in an issue in which there is patent disagreement.
Who decides what that is? Goverments are trying to abrogue that right for themselves, unfrotunately the current US administration does so based in religious zealotry, which is a wonderful base for the advancement of science.
If all what you are saying was at least remotely based on reality, MS would not have the stronghold they have in the desktop market because their reputation would be in shatters.
There are people even here that defend them fro buuny's sake!
I just used 10 films (36 pictures each) during my last holidays.
I used SLR because all the reason you mentioned. Now that I have the money I will cerainly buy a Digital SLR.
Re:Stick with Windows and if you do...
on
PC Annoyances
·
· Score: 1
1.- Yes if they are supported (like Windows). 2.- Do not know. 3.- Google. 4.- ? 5.- Why on hell do you need Dial out and broadband on same machine? In any case, Linux can of course. They are different network devices, you just configure routing (don't come with the bullshit that WIndows points an clicks its way through this, you have to confer the same information as in Linux). 6.. If you specification is "I need a machine that works with MS software" then why are you bothering to ask all of the above????
Slashdot Mirror
That publicly has said otherwise.
Failing congratulate your "intelligence" services for yet another job well done.
Who the hell do you think you are?
Stop all this nonsense about justice because it just makes me feel like vomiting.
Who gave the US, UK, Russia, or other countries the right to intervene at will in the affirs of other countries?
People in the US and UK talk as if their countries have a god given right to put wrongs right and decide what is best for others, like if there was never a Vietnam, the Philipinnes never existed and the dead preseidents, democratically elected, of many Latin American countries did not lay dead thanks to the good offices of the respective US embassies coluding with their facourite dictators of the day.
So many people are incensed about the whole Irak fiasco not because they are supporters of Hussein, as many disingineous people claim as soon as anybody oposses this silly war, not because they don't want to see a better Iraq and Middle East, but because they are defending a principle: the principle that other countries have no business messing with the internal affairs of others.
For people in the US and the UK this is not understandable at all because they have not endured foreign occupation or partition of their countries, or have not lost a head of state or goverment at the hands of foreign powers.
Nevertheless there are many countries out there that have suffered this, and although to get rid of Hussein is a good thing by itself, when put in the context of international politicis for the future, it is an omminous sign. The US and, and its lackeys the mighty UK, Poland and Spain (that not surprisingly are doing all what they can to derail the European Union) have decided that might is right.
Lets say for the sake of argument that the US and co. had got this right. How are they going to be stopped when they get it wrong if there are no counterbalances at all?
If you are a country that may feel could be in the US's sight in the future, what would you do? Pile bombs I say, look at North Korea's example.
The US has introduced the law of the jungle in international politics, Hussein could have been brought down with the help of the countries that had misgivings and the full support of the UN, the problem is that for some reason the US and the UK where in a hurry to start this conflict. This hurrienes remains to be explained since there was no direct threat to the US or the UK (if there would have been any they would have been hit already).
Enough is what I say. Enough of a few countries feeling they own the world and can they do as they please. If people in those countries are prepared to support this then they are only abbeting an spiral of violence that will have no end.
... then you would have known tha the Spanish spelling is Irak as well....
Bush and co. are dreadful but they do not come even close to the brutality of Mr Hussein. Although they should respond for the dozens of innocent civilians that have died during their unilateralist adventures, that pales in comparision to what Hussein did, and they can at least claim some degree of legitimacy since most US people live in the blissful idea that their actions are making the word a safer place to be.
The very few pluses of Mr Hussein rule are heavily outweighted by the brutality that he enforced all around the region (lets remember that not only Iraq suffered under his rule, but also Iran, Iraq and Israel tasted at one point or another Mr Hussien's brutality), I concur in which it would be of paramount imprtance tha the role of many countries in abbeting this monster to rise should be fully explored, a fari trial would facilitate this. Most probably there is no country with a clean sheet regarding Iraq. All including the US, UK, France, Israel, Turkey, Iran and many others have a lot to answer for in regards to the misery of the Iraqi people.
In which country did the 9/11 terrorists practiced their piloting skillz?
That country should also be linked to the 9/11 attacks.
Just what a country emerging from a dictatorship needs.
Who is this guy anyway?
Where are the WMDs?
Oh sorry, I forgot, crimental. or wahtever.
Now it is the war on terror and the good of Iraqi people.
Stoopid me.
Please explain how it comes in a sturated pipe the ftp server, just one IP address away, was still available, as several other machines is same subnet.
Expectingly awaiting answer.
Robin.
... of Security export from Australia?
No?
I thought so.
Windows is a generic term on the IT industry. If MS was stupid enough to use it for their main product, well, though.
At least in English speaking countries, they have no legal leg to stand it. It speak volumes that MS had to go to places like Sweden or FInland.
What is next? Impunge in places where Zulu and Mongolian is spoken?
My Sun systems are full of windows. Ther have been since the times of SunOS.
So if somebody tell me " this software runs only in windows" I would as: "the operating system. or are you talking about a generic graphic desktop?"
No joking, for many people windows != Windows
... that a fetus that can't feel or think, is not a human (i.e. during early stages, and certainly an embryo is not a human at all in my book).
So what is it sonny, do I impose my views on you or do you impose yours on me?
Or do we agree to disagree and trust that the goverment will facilitate that both do our own choices without being criminalized in an issue that is far from clear?
You don't want scisnce to dictate the issues, well, I don't want religion to dictate them neither, so once again sonnt, do I opress you or do you opress me?
Why should everybody know one is a clone?
It would not be more than a curiosity regarding your birth, like saying I was born by caesarean section or by in-vitro fertilization. Who will fscking care when it becomes common practice?
How do adopted children feel? I do not know, some great and greatful, some sad, some do not care. So your point is? Cloned individuals certainly would show as amny different responses.
Now you are entering the realms of trolling. By claiming that people wanting clones are mentaly unstable. Who are you? A psychologyst?
No matter how you want to spin it. If you follow that logic then every time a man masturbates he commits mass murder.
Even a very young fetus is not fully human since it has no capacity for abstract thought.
Once that capacity exists (with the formation of the neocrotex in the brain) then we could grant a fetus all the same rights as a fully formed human, as longs as those rights do not enter in conflict with the mother.
This is clearly a moral dilemma, and as such, it should be left to individuals to decide what to do according to their own values.
A goverment in a democratic society should not be dictating values in an issue in which there is patent disagreement.
Who decides what that is? Goverments are trying to abrogue that right for themselves, unfrotunately the current US administration does so based in religious zealotry, which is a wonderful base for the advancement of science.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
.... of people doing things "for the good of the public"....
If all what you are saying was at least remotely based on reality, MS would not have the stronghold they have in the desktop market because their reputation would be in shatters.
There are people even here that defend them fro buuny's sake!
As far as I am concerned, any company in that group have the potential to become the next SCO.
I just used 10 films (36 pictures each) during my last holidays.
I used SLR because all the reason you mentioned. Now that I have the money I will cerainly buy a Digital SLR.
1.- Yes if they are supported (like Windows).
2.- Do not know.
3.- Google.
4.- ?
5.- Why on hell do you need Dial out and broadband on same machine? In any case, Linux can of course. They are different network devices, you just configure routing (don't come with the bullshit that WIndows points an clicks its way through this, you have to confer the same information as in Linux).
6.. If you specification is "I need a machine that works with MS software" then why are you bothering to ask all of the above????
Thus, stop whining.
The fscking site runs and *pays* itself, it was borne out of immaterial ether.
The bastards.
Any.
Darl and his brother?
His legal team?
Sun?
Is Darl's next move to sue himself?