Me and my wife watched as some gang of hoodlums beat a kid to the brink of death in the street
. . . and did nothing? Why not call the police or tackle one of the 'hoodlums'?
If that had happened in my town, I think I would have shot one of them;)
That's one of the good things about the right to bear arms. People always have to wonder if someone has a concealed weapon, and risk getting capped if they start some shit.
Yes, it is a moral stance. The country itself should stay out of other countries affairs.
That does not mean the government could prevent individuals from going to help fight, treat wounds, offer food or medical supplies, etc. But that is something for individuals to choose.
The US certainly was attacked by the British (and Canadians, eh?) in the early part of the 19th century, when much of the population was still loyal to the King of England. We rightfully defended ourselves. But we did not take the war to the British Isles.
Since Switzerland has been neutral, has it ever been invaded or attacked?
Someone did a bit of math, if the average chinese citizen were to reach a level prosperity equal to 30% of the average American, they would consume 3x as much natural resources than all of US does right now.
That doesn't make sense either. Someone did the math wrong.
The population of China is about five times as large as that of the US, not ten. Either change 30% to 60%, or change 3x to 150%.
The original poster claimed that the US wasn't "morally right" to deny countries nuclear weapons.
Only the US has actually used nuclear weapons in a war. And that was when other countries did not have their own nuclear weapons to deter us. These days, mutually-assured destruction makes the use of nuclear weapons stupid. Dr. Strangelove shows how it works.
I challenge you to come up with a foreign-policy that's "morally right" according to all moral codes (past, present, and future) and based on ideas that have historically proven successful.
Let's try the Swiss policy of minding our own business. "Don't get involved in other people's affairs", as it is said. Let's try true free trade, non-agression, defense of our country, but no offense in other countries. This does not prevent us from building missile defenses and such.
Imagine how much less of our tax money we would spend if we didn't send our troops around the world to defend our the business interests of our pet companies that pay off politicians for the protection.
Re:OpenSolaris?
on
Oracle Linux?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That depends on OpenSolaris hardware support. I doubt Oracle wants to lose any opportunities on unsupported hardware, and it would be a lot of extra work for them to create drivers.
Without total world domination, Larry Ellison can't become the richest man in the world, right?
They aren't even trying to clean up their act, they just blame the infidels or simply lie about Islam as much as possible.
Does 'they' mean all Muslims? How do you know that is true?
Guilt by association is also inevitable when enough people belonging to the same group display consistent negative and violent behavior. This is just natural and sensible.
It is not inevitable, natural, or sensible to some of us.
Let me put this another way for you. . .
Suppose two US Marines raped a young Japanese girl (under 16 years old) in Okinawa.
Not one Marine publicly denounced the rape, although the Pentagon did issue apologetic press releases.
Should all US Marines deployed in Japan be held responsible for the actions of those two rapists? What if they were found guilty in court? Could Japan then imprison all US Marines for, say, eight years?
Let's just nuke everyone, and let the survivors figure it out, right?
Collective punishment of a whole group of people (including innocent ones who happen to be in the same place) might get rid of your enemies. On the other hand, it might also breed even more enemies.
And Romans certainly never destroyed all their enemies.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, they are removing all the flush toilets.
With only urinals and piss pots, employees won't be dropping loads at work anymore.
I have been told
I have been told that the girl was over 18 years old.
That doesn't make it true.
Me and my wife watched as some gang of hoodlums beat a kid to the brink of death in the street
;)
. . . and did nothing? Why not call the police or tackle one of the 'hoodlums'?
If that had happened in my town, I think I would have shot one of them
That's one of the good things about the right to bear arms. People always have to wonder if someone has a concealed weapon, and risk getting capped if they start some shit.
Some are, but not all.
Maybe he was testing Google's intelligence, before they could test his.
Are you implying that Google HR drones don't have to go through the same rigourous interview process that everyone else does?
Yes, it is a moral stance. The country itself should stay out of other countries affairs.
That does not mean the government could prevent individuals from going to help fight, treat wounds, offer food or medical supplies, etc. But that is something for individuals to choose.
The US certainly was attacked by the British (and Canadians, eh?) in the early part of the 19th century, when much of the population was still loyal to the King of England. We rightfully defended ourselves. But we did not take the war to the British Isles.
Since Switzerland has been neutral, has it ever been invaded or attacked?
Someone did a bit of math, if the average chinese citizen were to reach a level prosperity equal to 30% of the average American, they would consume 3x as much natural resources than all of US does right now.
That doesn't make sense either. Someone did the math wrong.
The population of China is about five times as large as that of the US, not ten. Either change 30% to 60%, or change 3x to 150%.
In related news. . .
The US has added South African bacteria to the Axis of Evil.
Didn't you watch the Scooby Doo show?
I believe one of the Harlem Globetrotters carried all that and more in his afro.
The original poster claimed that the US wasn't "morally right" to deny countries nuclear weapons.
Only the US has actually used nuclear weapons in a war. And that was when other countries did not have their own nuclear weapons to deter us. These days, mutually-assured destruction makes the use of nuclear weapons stupid. Dr. Strangelove shows how it works.
I challenge you to come up with a foreign-policy that's "morally right" according to all moral codes (past, present, and future) and based on ideas that have historically proven successful.
Let's try the Swiss policy of minding our own business. "Don't get involved in other people's affairs", as it is said. Let's try true free trade, non-agression, defense of our country, but no offense in other countries. This does not prevent us from building missile defenses and such.
Imagine how much less of our tax money we would spend if we didn't send our troops around the world to defend our the business interests of our pet companies that pay off politicians for the protection.
China will throw a 1000 people into space just to get 10 that actually survive
Every person China has sent into space has returned safely. So far, so good.
Now with extra coca!
That depends on OpenSolaris hardware support. I doubt Oracle wants to lose any opportunities on unsupported hardware, and it would be a lot of extra work for them to create drivers.
Without total world domination, Larry Ellison can't become the richest man in the world, right?
It's a good thing Google just got YouTube for nothing.
How can they make money from this purchase? Maybe they can make some money, but how really different is YouTube than Google Video?
Or did they purchase YouTube to keep someone else from getting the technology?
What happened to Friendster?
I hope it's not cancer!
I can certainly get a lot more "business" done with Firefox, thanks to Adblock.
Care to name a part of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU does not agree with?
That general must not be very successful.
Success in the Chinese military is determined by how many businesses you run or own.
The ability to fire a weapon with precision, repel an invasion, know how to tell the difference between friends and foes, etc. is not too important.
They aren't even trying to clean up their act, they just blame the infidels or simply lie about Islam as much as possible.
Does 'they' mean all Muslims? How do you know that is true?
Guilt by association is also inevitable when enough people belonging to the same group display consistent negative and violent behavior. This is just natural and sensible.
It is not inevitable, natural, or sensible to some of us.
Let me put this another way for you. . .
Suppose two US Marines raped a young Japanese girl (under 16 years old) in Okinawa. Not one Marine publicly denounced the rape, although the Pentagon did issue apologetic press releases.
Should all US Marines deployed in Japan be held responsible for the actions of those two rapists? What if they were found guilty in court? Could Japan then imprison all US Marines for, say, eight years?
Let's just nuke everyone, and let the survivors figure it out, right?
Collective punishment of a whole group of people (including innocent ones who happen to be in the same place) might get rid of your enemies. On the other hand, it might also breed even more enemies.
And Romans certainly never destroyed all their enemies.
So all Muslims are collectively responsible for the actions of any one of them? Is it guilt by association?
Are all Slashdotters responsible for your illogical views?
And to think MS claimed to give the consumers what they want.
They told that to the court in the anti-trust case.
Guess what, Microsoft. We want to choose whether to listen to your shit, or not.
I hope I can retire before my employer decides to buy Vista.
Did Lockheed actually have the best design for the money? Or was politics the deciding factor once again? (Boeing gets it next time, eh?)