The unfortunate fact is that civilians in a war zone are sometimes victims. This is not always the result of an act of a criminal,
IMO every war is the direct result (and all the shit that happens in that war the indirect result) of the acts of at least one criminal, often two, sometimes even more, usually called "president" or "king".
People have been successfully prosecuted hundreds of times for selling "drugs" that turned out to be flour, oregano, pudding
Well, laws differ around the world, but i'm pretty sure that over here (Austria) you can only be prosecuted for fraud in such a case. Not that i'd be eager to try to sell flour to a desparate junkie (both because i'd be an asshole and i might get killed).
Also a thread of its own is the bizarre notion that dictatorships have any kind of legitimacy.
Or monarchies, for that matter. Yet, you can't just get rid of dictators/monarchs without causing serious troubles for the people there. Especially not if you do it like the US in Iraq (i.e. from the outside, based upon wrong accusations, constantly lying and looking suspiciously like oil thieves and thereby supplying the very terrorists you claim to fight with and endless stream of human bombs).
the engine that drives the evolutionary process in the human population has been (all but) removed by way of social programs, improved medical techniques, invitro fertilization (natural selection... anyone?), you name it
No. Those things changed what would be regarded as "fitness" in that context but didn't somehow magically suspend evolution.
If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to reproduce, and yet modern medicine/technology/whatever have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date"
If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to survive attacks by wild animals, and yet throwing rocks and waving burning sticks at those animals have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date".
How in the hell is this not a bad thing for the population as a whole?
Because there's no need for perfect physical health anymore? Seriously, how long would have Stephen Hawking survived in the - say - fifteenth century? Are you sure that mankind would be better off without him?
Seriously, just because you disagree with the laws of nature about what excatly "fitness" means doesn't make nature's definition wrong and yours right. "Fitness" means adaption to the environment, and the environment has changed, as has "fitness".
If the USA (and the UK) kept their armies and "intelligence" agencies from fucking around with the rest of the world, the world would be a better and safer place. Iranian oil, Iraqi oil, Venezuelan oil is none of your fucking business. You don't have any right to it.
Yes, you have a near-perfect education system that produces plenty of cannon-fodder (poor and/or brainwashed enough) that your well-funded armies can send to whatever place they want to steal whatever stuff they want.
The 16th century saw renewed independence with the Safavids and then other lines of kings or shahs. During the 19th century Persia came under pressure from both Russia and the United Kingdom leading to a process of modernisation that continued into the 20th century. By the 20th century Iranians were longing for a change and thus followed the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905/1911. In 1953 Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944 and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax").
Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After more than a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by popular vote.
So USA and UK tried to protect the Iranian people from a - umm - democratic regime and reinstalled their beloved tyrant. The ungrateful Iranians didn't like that, revolted, and from that mess emerged another group of tyrants, which like to kill people for ludicous "offenses".
While the new tyrans aren't the USA/UKs fault per se, it is obvious that their rise to power was eased by USA/UKs greed for oil and their lack of respect for democracy and autonomy.
The problem with ID is that the Intelligent Designer in question can potentially be omnipotent and omniscient.
Even if he isn't, he has to be intelligent, hence complex enough that he couldn't have evolved by chance, according to ID "theory" itself. Hence, there must be a designer's designer. And so on.
And when is the last time all of those other groups combined inflicted even a fraction of the dozen or so terrorist attacks a day we see in Iraq alone?
I didn't say anything at all about the number and effectiveness of attacks, and neither did you until just now.
Anyways, I think we shouldn't forget the fact that there were, are and will be terrorists of pretty much any faith.
After all, focusing on one threat (commies!) while ignoring and underestimating another one (hey, those towelheads fight the commies so they are our friends!) surely contributed to our current situation.
How about a winged organism developing a larval stage, which provides the advantage of having smaller eggs (the wings don't have to fit there) and a bit of protection while the wings grow?
You are assuming a priori that there is nothing wrong with teenagers having sex. This is of course a faulty assumption, since there is no reason for a teenager to be having sex.
Yeah. Just like there is no reason for a teenager to be listening to music. I mean, at too high volume they might damage their hearing.
The problem with American society is that it is disfunctional. We claim that people are not mature enough to vote until 18, or drink a beer until 21, yet we educate them on how to have sex without (hopefully) having a baby when in high school (13-14).
I don't know enough about american society to claim anything.
Over here (Austria) drinking beer is legal at age 16, and at least somewhat accepted before that.
13-year-olds that are drunk every weekend are seen as problematic, but someone who makes first experiences with alcohol at 15 is probably regarded as perfectly fine by most of the people here.
For local elections in part of Austria, voting age has been lowered to 16 recently.
Oh yeah, 16 was also the age at which i first had sex, and at that time i had known enough about contraception and STDs for probably a few years. "Official" sex ed was probably at 13-14, but i don't remember exactly.
IMO i had plenty reason for having sex and was also as ready as you can get emotionally.
Also, over here teenagers don't continue to get themselves pregnant. The problems your society seems to have definitely don't (only) stem from teenagers and their having sex.
Because when teenagers have sex, they are in no position to raise their children properly.
When teenagers have sex they should use contraception. Actually, that's pretty much independent of age. Want babies -> sex w/o contraception. Want no babies -> sex w/ contraception.
Yeah, contraception is not perfect, but I suspect the problem with american teenagers is lack of contraception, not too much sex. (Am european myself and highly doubt americans get more action than we.)
That is something you must decide for yourself. I would tend to agree, but I am not so obnoxious to submit that people who hold the opposite view are, in your words, crazy.
Call me whatever you want, presumed guilt is crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
IMO every war is the direct result (and all the shit that happens in that war the indirect result) of the acts of at least one criminal, often two, sometimes even more, usually called "president" or "king".
Actually Windows NT was designed to be more secure than Unix.
Somehow everything got messed up though.
Well, laws differ around the world, but i'm pretty sure that over here (Austria) you can only be prosecuted for fraud in such a case. Not that i'd be eager to try to sell flour to a desparate junkie (both because i'd be an asshole and i might get killed).
George Soros uses MJ? I know he's pro-reasonable-laws, but haven't heard yet that he's a consumer. -v, please?
I sure hope you have a bunker in your basement.
Or monarchies, for that matter. Yet, you can't just get rid of dictators/monarchs without causing serious troubles for the people there. Especially not if you do it like the US in Iraq (i.e. from the outside, based upon wrong accusations, constantly lying and looking suspiciously like oil thieves and thereby supplying the very terrorists you claim to fight with and endless stream of human bombs).
No. Those things changed what would be regarded as "fitness" in that context but didn't somehow magically suspend evolution.
If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to survive attacks by wild animals, and yet throwing rocks and waving burning sticks at those animals have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date".
Because there's no need for perfect physical health anymore? Seriously, how long would have Stephen Hawking survived in the - say - fifteenth century? Are you sure that mankind would be better off without him?
Seriously, just because you disagree with the laws of nature about what excatly "fitness" means doesn't make nature's definition wrong and yours right. "Fitness" means adaption to the environment, and the environment has changed, as has "fitness".
...just want to add to my post:
If the USA (and the UK) kept their armies and "intelligence" agencies from fucking around with the rest of the world, the world would be a better and safer place. Iranian oil, Iraqi oil, Venezuelan oil is none of your fucking business. You don't have any right to it.
Yes, you have a near-perfect education system that produces plenty of cannon-fodder (poor and/or brainwashed enough) that your well-funded armies can send to whatever place they want to steal whatever stuff they want.
No, that still doesn't mean you're right.
</rant>
Easy. From Wikipedia:
The 16th century saw renewed independence with the Safavids and then other lines of kings or shahs. During the 19th century Persia came under pressure from both Russia and the United Kingdom leading to a process of modernisation that continued into the 20th century. By the 20th century Iranians were longing for a change and thus followed the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905/1911. In 1953 Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944 and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax").
Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After more than a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by popular vote.
So USA and UK tried to protect the Iranian people from a - umm - democratic regime and reinstalled their beloved tyrant. The ungrateful Iranians didn't like that, revolted, and from that mess emerged another group of tyrants, which like to kill people for ludicous "offenses".
While the new tyrans aren't the USA/UKs fault per se, it is obvious that their rise to power was eased by USA/UKs greed for oil and their lack of respect for democracy and autonomy.
q.e.d.
You, sir, were ripped off.
In summer 2012, war was beginning.
Someone set up olympic the games!
Main gold turn on!
Will it also include new Dry Water and new Perpetuum Mobile?
But do they act like particles if observed in wavy ways?
Yeah, if it's self-replicating it's a virus. See here.
Even if he isn't, he has to be intelligent, hence complex enough that he couldn't have evolved by chance, according to ID "theory" itself. Hence, there must be a designer's designer. And so on.
I'm not sure that evolution in its core deals with the origin of life itself, more with (guess what) evolution of life once it exists.
Yes, there are some scientific theories on the origin of life, but you can reject all of them without rejecting evolution.
I didn't say anything at all about the number and effectiveness of attacks, and neither did you until just now.
Anyways, I think we shouldn't forget the fact that there were, are and will be terrorists of pretty much any faith.
After all, focusing on one threat (commies!) while ignoring and underestimating another one (hey, those towelheads fight the commies so they are our friends!) surely contributed to our current situation.
Yes, mostly Irish Catholic Muslims,
Basque Socialist Muslims,
German Post-Hippie Muslims,
American Nutcase Muslims and
Japanese Hindu-Buddhist Muslims.
How about a winged organism developing a larval stage, which provides the advantage of having smaller eggs (the wings don't have to fit there) and a bit of protection while the wings grow?
sure is.
... but only in a certain village in tunisia.
1987 called and wants its Larry back.
And then 1981 called to remind us that Larry was a remake anyways.
Yeah. Just like there is no reason for a teenager to be listening to music. I mean, at too high volume they might damage their hearing.
I don't know enough about american society to claim anything.
Over here (Austria) drinking beer is legal at age 16, and at least somewhat accepted before that.
13-year-olds that are drunk every weekend are seen as problematic, but someone who makes first experiences with alcohol at 15 is probably regarded as perfectly fine by most of the people here.
For local elections in part of Austria, voting age has been lowered to 16 recently.
Oh yeah, 16 was also the age at which i first had sex, and at that time i had known enough about contraception and STDs for probably a few years. "Official" sex ed was probably at 13-14, but i don't remember exactly.
IMO i had plenty reason for having sex and was also as ready as you can get emotionally.
Also, over here teenagers don't continue to get themselves pregnant. The problems your society seems to have definitely don't (only) stem from teenagers and their having sex.
When teenagers have sex they should use contraception. Actually, that's pretty much independent of age. Want babies -> sex w/o contraception. Want no babies -> sex w/ contraception.
Yeah, contraception is not perfect, but I suspect the problem with american teenagers is lack of contraception, not too much sex. (Am european myself and highly doubt americans get more action than we.)
That is something you must decide for yourself. I would tend to agree, but I am not so obnoxious to submit that people who hold the opposite view are, in your words, crazy.
Call me whatever you want, presumed guilt is crazy.