The death of UNIX was predicted 20 years ago... it was prediced 10 years ago.
History is doomed to repeat itself in the eyes on unenlightened RedHat employees. Sorry, but although many Fortune 500 companies are now deploying Linux, very few of them are deploying Linux to replace their traditional UNIX systems which they have BILLIONS of dollars invested.
So give me a break... UNIX will be around for another 20 years, believe it or not.
You do not know the full details of the case. Did he hold her down? Did he drag her into a closet? Did he hit her? Did he molest her with a broom stick? YOU DON'T KNOW! So therefore, don't make judgements unless YOU KNOW THE FACTS.
You also don't know what he told cops. He could have responded "yes i knew it was wrong but I saw it on TV so i did it anyway" in which case he shows clear understanding of what he did, knew that it was wrong, and DID IT ANYWAY. Again, you don't know the facts, so you cannot judge the situation.
Sure, it seems strange, but that does not mean there are no reasons for the charge.
(NOTE: ALL STATEMENTS HERE ARE HYPOTHETICAL AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY EVIDENCE FOR A LEGAL PROCEEDING)
mac addresses nor hard drive specs are unique.... however, CPUIDs are... and on XP, it would be difficult, if not completely impossible, for a program running within XP to write directly to the hard drive since XP protects against such activities (all cracks about windows being insecure aside).
Most tech-heads do not steal laptops, that would be stupid, and most tech-heads are not stupid. The people who do steal laptops are idiots like the one who got caught. And, replacing a CPU on a laptop is extremely difficult. However, replacing a hard drive is a lot easier.
If you rely on all hardware, then if any of the hardware is changed, you'd have a different configuration... and therefore would not match since it is likely for another machine to have the same hard drive and similar MAC address... especially from companies like Dell, HP/Compaq, etc where they all use Intel NIC cards and Hitachi hard drives.
But then again, AOL probably has other ways to track computers for marketing and such... to determine what PCs are being used how much to access AOL services, etc...
I agree. This is just lame... and complete lack of originality by far.
OKAY CASE MOD'ERS, IT'S TIME TO BECOME ORIGINAL!!!
Maybe if you left your parent's basement, you would develope some sense of originality... but, even in these pictures, it's obvious this guy is a permenant dweller of his parent's cellar.
Me too, except I went with this stuff. It's a little more "office-like" than "bedroom-like", and it matches my Ikea desk, too. That is the setup I have, the bottom is a file hanging file drawer, middle is 3 5-6" deep drawers (perfect for hard drives, properly tied up cables, etc), and an addition to the top which is just a couple doors in which I can put random crap. I plan to get another one of those three-drawer units to have more drawer space.
Overall it works out well, it's neat, clean, and everything is organized. I do have some organizers in the drawers as well, plastic bait-type things, which I use for organizing screws, as well as tupperware containers for storing drive brackets, bay covers, and IDE cables.
I did not say governments do not affect the economy, I said specifically that the president of the United States does not affect the economy and stated that the only branch which does is the Congress.
- Congress OK'd $87 billion in spending for Iraq. Sure, it was the president's IDEA, but unless Congress approves of the bill, it's not getting spent. But how exactly does this affect the economy? Oh okay, following WWII we gave $110 billion to Europe for reconstruction (known as the Marshell Plan) and by the 1960s the United States was the richest country in the world holding over 98% of the gold EVER mined within our borders. However, that quickly went away with Kenedy's and Johnson's little Vietnam tift.
- What you're speaking of is tariffs, and again, Congress approves tariffs of all goods, not the president.
- The Kyoto treaty, again, must be approved by the Senate. And let's clear up the air, Mr Clinton did not sign the Kyoto until his LAST day in office, and Bush repealed it the FIRST day in office. Congress never voted on it, and they do not need the President's signature to vote on it either. So to blame Bush for ignoring Kyoto in an invalid arguement. Also, again, how does Kyoto affect the economy? It may affect the environment, but not the economy.
- NAFTA, again, approved by the Congress, although it was supported and pushed by Bill Clinton. However, the affects on the economy have not been revealed significant. While some jobs have been lost, the price of products have come down significantly. These two things kind of offset each other while providing jobs for our neighboring countries. Whether that was for good or for bad has yet to be seen, and whether I agree with it or not does not matter for the sake of this discussion.
All in all, you are ignorant... you obviously do not know how the government works and what is required in order to pass a law, or to agree to a treaty, or an international agreement such as NAFTA. And you certainly do not know how to differentiate between "president" and "government".
Gore makes some interesting perceptions of the founding fathers and what not, which I personally did not know myself, so it was interesting to read. Then he went into this anti-Bush slander spin, which to me, completely rendered his points about the founding fathers as probably misleading or just plain wrong.
For instance, he blames the economy on President Bush. However, as any intelligent person would know, and as any economist would tell you, the President has zero to nothing to do with the economy. If any branch of government affects the economy, it would be the Congress, but even that affect would be minimal at best.
Secondly, he insinuates that Bush will win the election by playing favors with voting machine manufacturers. I would like to see his proof. I will take his word for it that these companies contributed to his campaign. I'm sure they contribute to lots of campaigns, on both sides of the isle, but I think the sin-of-omission rule applies here. This also borders on slander, since I do not think he can prove the case that this collusion is taking place.
He also claims the USA Patriot Act is similar to Hitler's rule over Germany, and says that the this is all Bush's fault. While that may or may not be true (which I personally think is a little extreme), the fact is, many of the ideas within the Patriot Act were first introduced by Al Gore in 1996 prior to Clinton's re-election (in order to help Clinton get re-elected probably?) Such items include the roaming wire taps on suspected terrorists and holding terrorists without access to lawyers and such.. was all first introducted by Al Gore. BTW, the President does not pass bills, the Congress does, and records show that the Patriot act was supported widely on both sides of the isle.
Then he refers to the president as deranged. Well, this is just a great comment because it shows the immaturity of an old man. You can disagree with anyone on politics, but to insult someone on the personal level is extremely immature.
Then he accused the administration of leaking the name of the CIA agent, when the reporter who leaked it, Robert Novak, has said he did not get that info from the administration, and that he himself, put this information together. Secondly, it has been public knowledge that this CIA agent was the wife of an ambassador even as far back as the mid-90s. Again, a statement like this makes Mr Vidal look petty, immature and uninformed.
Although I do agree that electronic-only ballots are not to be trusted...
It's not fantasy, it's fact. Read the book, stop making wild accusations. Carter negotiated the disarmament, not the treaty. These are two different things.
The anti-aggression treaty signed in the 50s is still in effect.
The idea that the government censored this is a conspiracy theory. The definition of conspiracy states that specifically: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
There are plenty of other more rational explanations to what happened:
1) rm -f file 2) mv file file.something.else 3) unmount/partition 4) typo in link 5) typo in filename
.. and many others
All of these are more likely the cause of the problem than a conspiracy between the government and Time magazine to pull the story.
In 1994, Clinton was planning on bombing North Korea. However, he received a call from Jimmy Carter saying "hey I'm going to North Korea tomorrow to negotiate a disarmament". Clinton, who didn't have the hear to say no to the great Jimmy Carter, said OK. The next day, Clinton saw on CNN that Jimmy Carter had done just what he said he was going to do... negotiate a disarmament with North Korea. However, what Clinton did not expect, was that Carter's agreement made all kinds of concessions of the U.S. side and none of the North Korean side. This story is explained in more detail in former Clinton campaign advisor Dick Morris's book "Off With Their Heads".
So, the question is not whether the country is a threat, but how much of a threat they are. In 1994, sure, North Korea had the ability to use heavy artilary against the U.S. forces stationed along the border, but in 1994 North Korea did NOT have the ability to launch nuclear, or even conventional, long-range missile attacks on Japan and parts of the western United States as they do today.
If North Korea was properly dealt with in 1994, they wouldn't be in Bush's "Axis of Evil" today.
So then you admit that GHW Bush said was spin, possibly factually incorrect, and that you approved of GW Bush's move to remove Saddam from power in Iraq.
You're just assuming it was removed to protect the president. However, Time magazine is known for it's liberal bias and attacking the president.
What seems more plausible is that they were removing old content from their website. That particular article is 5 years old (sounds like a good round number).
You're living by conspiracy theories, and not what is probably more likely to be the case. You're also stating that the copyright holder of material does not have the right to add or remove their own work from their website.
Oh BTW, the U.S. is not a country where the government controls the media like in most other nations in the world.
The allies pretty much admitted that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war, but they didn't make much of a noise about that because it served their purpose to have the public believe that Al Qaeda was in Iraq to bolster support for the war.
Untrue. It is still upheld that Al Qaeda training camps existed in northern Iraq before the war. They have proof the camp was being used even 1 month before the beginning of the invasion. Secondly, Iraqi disposed commanders are now in charge of these Al Qaeda cells which are in Iraq. If Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda, why would Iraqi officials be "leading" Al Qaeda members to attack civilians and U.S. soldiers?
As for N Korea, Bush claiming it was part of his "Axis of Evil" didn't help. NK has now seen what has happened to one third of that (Iraq) and is now trying to make sure it isn't the next target. At this point, you can't really blame it for developing a nuclear deterrant.
Again, untrue. North Korea has admitted to never stopping it's nuclear amibitions following the consessions made with Carter on behalf of Clinton in 1994. Their buildup of nuclear arsenol never stopped, therefore stating they want a nuclear deterrant is FALSE.
I do not no why this story was approved by slashdot admins. This is obviously another blatent attempt to attack President Bush on his decision to go into and remove Saddam from power. If this wasn't Bush-bashing... if it was, for instance, Clinton bashing, it would have been rejected in a second.
But no matter what anyone says, things have changed since September 11... and GW Bush is NOT GHW Bush. The two situations, the two men, are two different things and can not be compared. While the points made by GHW Bush in 1998 are true and accurate, they do not consider the relevance of such a move post 9/11.
The arguements will come in that 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq.. and Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq, but current news would disagree with that assessment. Clinton's inaction in 1994 regarding N Korea has led to another rogue nation with nuclear weapons... leaving Saddam alone could have had the same effect.
As we see, this is another instance in which the socialists wish to control us. This is just another way for the liberal socialists to limit (if not completely destroy) our freedom of expression and freedom of choice.
Under the false umbrella of "best for the people", the socialists will continue to insert themselves more into our lives disallowing us to even think for ourselves (read: 1984).
Stations make fun of themselves all the time, and their affiliates. Saturday Night Live constantly makes fun of NBC (as well as other channels), and Letterman is KNOWN for his CBS cracks. Remember Fox's first hit Married With Children? Every other episode they had a Fox crack.
This is rediculous from every perspective. I am a fan of both the Simpsons and Fox News, and found that particular episode to be quiet comical and laughed by ass off the entire time. It plays to the democratic claims that Fox News is right-biased. Anyone with any brains can see it's an exaggeration, just as 99.999999% of the things on the Simpsons are. It's all over the top, that's what made the Simpsons so popular for so long.
So you're saying if we legalize drugs, then drug usage would go down... and it would cost less?
Great, I have a way to reduce crime AND save the country billions a year!
Let's legalize murder, prostitution, money laundering, and assault. Hell, we spend $50k per inmate per year when they're convicted of these crimes, so let's just legalize them! At the same time, the rate of these crimes will go down, just because it's now legal!
WOW! This is genius, thank you for educating me. Idiot.
You can easily require that treatment options be reviewed with purchasers, that money to buy drugs comes from verifyable sources (no cash provision), and a whole slew of other protections.
And that doesn't cost money? C'mon, it'd cost billions just to maintain that beaurocracy! Increase the size of government to patrol what we do, great job Mr Stalin!
Oh and just a word of advise, don't believe anything the ACLU says. This is the same organization that says it's inhumane to kill convicted murders, but okay to kill innocent, unborn children. Of course, if we legalize murders, I guess this hypocracy wouldn't exist anymore, huh?
Drug policy is not based solely on what's best for the kids, but what's best for the community. BTW, it's the job of the government to protect the people, and one way they do this is through making drugs illegal.
Like a previous poster said, alcohol and cigarettes are a perfect example of legalized drugs. And as you replied, it's not a complete comparison because of the penalties enforced.
From the civil rights aspect, sure, let people get all the drugs they want... it's their choice, it's their life.. right? Well, what happens when they overdose? Leave them in the streets because they dont have health insurance? Or do we hospitalize them... give them medicine... rehab them... ??? With who's money.. this would costs tens of thousands of dollars per person every time they're found in the street? With my money? I think not! Because of society's general ideal of helping those in need, we will never let some drug overdose "victim" (or, no longer a victim, actually, so we'll say subject) lay in the street dying. This is where the problem is. You would not be able to successfully tax illicit drug sales in order to defray the cost of hospital care, and even if you could, you'd be selling it for more than it could be bought on the streets.
The second issue is the known crime caused by drug addicts. Because of the addiciton caused by stuff like heroin, addicts will do anything they can to obtain the drug. This includes theft, prostitution, or in the worst cases assault and murder for hire. In fact, a murder can occur simply because someone was attempted to get $20 for his next high. This is a public safety issue in general.
The third issue is the quality of the work force. Legalizing drugs which impair judgement would eventually mean companies could not screen individuals (although, at first drug screening would hold up, it wouldnt be long before the ACLU challenged the privacy legality of the tests). The cause would be an ineffective work force, forcing companies to go out of business. This could also cause hostilities in a work place.
The fourth point, is that sentences for selling to minors would be just as lax as they are now with alcohol and cigarettes. Society's view would be one of "well he's just acting more drown up" because drug usage would be considered an "adult act".
The fifth and final point, do we want more corporations like "big tobacco" running our lives? Would they be required to state the inevitable side effects of the usage of their product? Would they be responsible for crimes being commited by those addicted to their drug? Would they be civilly sued for not disclosing that their drug was harmful? (etc etc, you get my point). What we will have is another company "attacking our children" as some liberals would say, and therefore they must be stopped.
I hear walking is much more efficient. You can walk a mile on only a small meal, prob the equivalent of 1/2lb of vegatables. This, of course, makes it more efficient.
Of course, if you have a 60 mile commute like I do, I'd need to eat about 30lbs of vegatables.... as well as allow approximately 12 hours of commute to walk those 60 miles. Which means I would have to leave for home the second I get to work in order to leave in time to get to work ontime the next day. Oh boy...
Now, 600 years later, a European colony is the world's dominant economic, technological and military power
You're talking about the United States, right? Because last time I checked, the United States was still the largest economic house in the world, still the leader of technology innovation, and definately has the most well trained, well equipped and well educated military in the world.
Of course I know you were talking about China... silly me. But nonetheless your statement (if about China) is incorrect, not to say it won't be correct in 50 years, mind you, but that's another story, and a lot can change in 50 years. A lot can change in 20 years....
U.S. citizens should realize that saying the US has a right to do whatever it wants is not compatible with saying other nations have no right to distrust the US - or to do things in their self-interest.
The U.S. citizens *do* realize it's the same thing. Remember, the U.S. is the starting point of democracy, and recognizes the view points of people differ and allows them to freely express those view points.
But another thing is, we don't CARE what other people think of us... which is another reason why *some* foreigners, particularly in Europe, do not like us even more. if we cow-towwed to their crap, we'd be the weak little brother of the great European Socialism and not visa versa (which it has been since WWII).
My point, however, is that it is human nation to distrust... and human nature to not be trustworthy. So to think that anyone is always going to trust everything is just foolish.
It was Clinton's great mistake to trade with China without China making human rights concessions.
Clinton, being the type of liberal I originally responded to, ya know, the kind that say, "oh everyone should get along... la la la everything is so wonderful" while collecting his campaign contributions from Chinese military officials, had no problem easing trade with China in exchange for that cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Various reasons... but in any case...
The death of UNIX was predicted 20 years ago... it was prediced 10 years ago.
History is doomed to repeat itself in the eyes on unenlightened RedHat employees. Sorry, but although many Fortune 500 companies are now deploying Linux, very few of them are deploying Linux to replace their traditional UNIX systems which they have BILLIONS of dollars invested.
So give me a break... UNIX will be around for another 20 years, believe it or not.
You're being ignorant.
You do not know the full details of the case. Did he hold her down? Did he drag her into a closet? Did he hit her? Did he molest her with a broom stick? YOU DON'T KNOW! So therefore, don't make judgements unless YOU KNOW THE FACTS.
You also don't know what he told cops. He could have responded "yes i knew it was wrong but I saw it on TV so i did it anyway" in which case he shows clear understanding of what he did, knew that it was wrong, and DID IT ANYWAY. Again, you don't know the facts, so you cannot judge the situation.
Sure, it seems strange, but that does not mean there are no reasons for the charge.
(NOTE: ALL STATEMENTS HERE ARE HYPOTHETICAL AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY EVIDENCE FOR A LEGAL PROCEEDING)
mac addresses nor hard drive specs are unique.... however, CPUIDs are... and on XP, it would be difficult, if not completely impossible, for a program running within XP to write directly to the hard drive since XP protects against such activities (all cracks about windows being insecure aside).
Most tech-heads do not steal laptops, that would be stupid, and most tech-heads are not stupid. The people who do steal laptops are idiots like the one who got caught. And, replacing a CPU on a laptop is extremely difficult. However, replacing a hard drive is a lot easier.
If you rely on all hardware, then if any of the hardware is changed, you'd have a different configuration... and therefore would not match since it is likely for another machine to have the same hard drive and similar MAC address... especially from companies like Dell, HP/Compaq, etc where they all use Intel NIC cards and Hitachi hard drives.
Once in a while, yes, it is your friend.
But then again, AOL probably has other ways to track computers for marketing and such... to determine what PCs are being used how much to access AOL services, etc...
I agree. This is just lame... and complete lack of originality by far.
OKAY CASE MOD'ERS, IT'S TIME TO BECOME ORIGINAL!!!
Maybe if you left your parent's basement, you would develope some sense of originality... but, even in these pictures, it's obvious this guy is a permenant dweller of his parent's cellar.
Me too, except I went with this stuff. It's a little more "office-like" than "bedroom-like", and it matches my Ikea desk, too. That is the setup I have, the bottom is a file hanging file drawer, middle is 3 5-6" deep drawers (perfect for hard drives, properly tied up cables, etc), and an addition to the top which is just a couple doors in which I can put random crap. I plan to get another one of those three-drawer units to have more drawer space.
Overall it works out well, it's neat, clean, and everything is organized. I do have some organizers in the drawers as well, plastic bait-type things, which I use for organizing screws, as well as tupperware containers for storing drive brackets, bay covers, and IDE cables.
I did not say governments do not affect the economy, I said specifically that the president of the United States does not affect the economy and stated that the only branch which does is the Congress.
- Congress OK'd $87 billion in spending for Iraq. Sure, it was the president's IDEA, but unless Congress approves of the bill, it's not getting spent. But how exactly does this affect the economy? Oh okay, following WWII we gave $110 billion to Europe for reconstruction (known as the Marshell Plan) and by the 1960s the United States was the richest country in the world holding over 98% of the gold EVER mined within our borders. However, that quickly went away with Kenedy's and Johnson's little Vietnam tift.
- What you're speaking of is tariffs, and again, Congress approves tariffs of all goods, not the president.
- The Kyoto treaty, again, must be approved by the Senate. And let's clear up the air, Mr Clinton did not sign the Kyoto until his LAST day in office, and Bush repealed it the FIRST day in office. Congress never voted on it, and they do not need the President's signature to vote on it either. So to blame Bush for ignoring Kyoto in an invalid arguement. Also, again, how does Kyoto affect the economy? It may affect the environment, but not the economy.
- NAFTA, again, approved by the Congress, although it was supported and pushed by Bill Clinton. However, the affects on the economy have not been revealed significant. While some jobs have been lost, the price of products have come down significantly. These two things kind of offset each other while providing jobs for our neighboring countries. Whether that was for good or for bad has yet to be seen, and whether I agree with it or not does not matter for the sake of this discussion.
All in all, you are ignorant... you obviously do not know how the government works and what is required in order to pass a law, or to agree to a treaty, or an international agreement such as NAFTA. And you certainly do not know how to differentiate between "president" and "government".
Gore makes some interesting perceptions of the founding fathers and what not, which I personally did not know myself, so it was interesting to read. Then he went into this anti-Bush slander spin, which to me, completely rendered his points about the founding fathers as probably misleading or just plain wrong.
For instance, he blames the economy on President Bush. However, as any intelligent person would know, and as any economist would tell you, the President has zero to nothing to do with the economy. If any branch of government affects the economy, it would be the Congress, but even that affect would be minimal at best.
Secondly, he insinuates that Bush will win the election by playing favors with voting machine manufacturers. I would like to see his proof. I will take his word for it that these companies contributed to his campaign. I'm sure they contribute to lots of campaigns, on both sides of the isle, but I think the sin-of-omission rule applies here. This also borders on slander, since I do not think he can prove the case that this collusion is taking place.
He also claims the USA Patriot Act is similar to Hitler's rule over Germany, and says that the this is all Bush's fault. While that may or may not be true (which I personally think is a little extreme), the fact is, many of the ideas within the Patriot Act were first introduced by Al Gore in 1996 prior to Clinton's re-election (in order to help Clinton get re-elected probably?) Such items include the roaming wire taps on suspected terrorists and holding terrorists without access to lawyers and such.. was all first introducted by Al Gore. BTW, the President does not pass bills, the Congress does, and records show that the Patriot act was supported widely on both sides of the isle.
Then he refers to the president as deranged. Well, this is just a great comment because it shows the immaturity of an old man. You can disagree with anyone on politics, but to insult someone on the personal level is extremely immature.
Then he accused the administration of leaking the name of the CIA agent, when the reporter who leaked it, Robert Novak, has said he did not get that info from the administration, and that he himself, put this information together. Secondly, it has been public knowledge that this CIA agent was the wife of an ambassador even as far back as the mid-90s. Again, a statement like this makes Mr Vidal look petty, immature and uninformed.
Although I do agree that electronic-only ballots are not to be trusted...
uhmmm Clinton did? Can't you read?
It's not fantasy, it's fact. Read the book, stop making wild accusations. Carter negotiated the disarmament, not the treaty. These are two different things.
The anti-aggression treaty signed in the 50s is still in effect.
The idea that the government censored this is a conspiracy theory. The definition of conspiracy states that specifically: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
/partition
.. and many others
There are plenty of other more rational explanations to what happened:
1) rm -f file
2) mv file file.something.else
3) unmount
4) typo in link
5) typo in filename
All of these are more likely the cause of the problem than a conspiracy between the government and Time magazine to pull the story.
Actually, if you must know the whole story...
In 1994, Clinton was planning on bombing North Korea. However, he received a call from Jimmy Carter saying "hey I'm going to North Korea tomorrow to negotiate a disarmament". Clinton, who didn't have the hear to say no to the great Jimmy Carter, said OK. The next day, Clinton saw on CNN that Jimmy Carter had done just what he said he was going to do... negotiate a disarmament with North Korea. However, what Clinton did not expect, was that Carter's agreement made all kinds of concessions of the U.S. side and none of the North Korean side. This story is explained in more detail in former Clinton campaign advisor Dick Morris's book "Off With Their Heads".
So, the question is not whether the country is a threat, but how much of a threat they are. In 1994, sure, North Korea had the ability to use heavy artilary against the U.S. forces stationed along the border, but in 1994 North Korea did NOT have the ability to launch nuclear, or even conventional, long-range missile attacks on Japan and parts of the western United States as they do today.
If North Korea was properly dealt with in 1994, they wouldn't be in Bush's "Axis of Evil" today.
So then you admit that GHW Bush said was spin, possibly factually incorrect, and that you approved of GW Bush's move to remove Saddam from power in Iraq.
Thanks for the clarification.
You're just assuming it was removed to protect the president. However, Time magazine is known for it's liberal bias and attacking the president.
What seems more plausible is that they were removing old content from their website. That particular article is 5 years old (sounds like a good round number).
You're living by conspiracy theories, and not what is probably more likely to be the case. You're also stating that the copyright holder of material does not have the right to add or remove their own work from their website.
Oh BTW, the U.S. is not a country where the government controls the media like in most other nations in the world.
The allies pretty much admitted that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war, but they didn't make much of a noise about that because it served their purpose to have the public believe that Al Qaeda was in Iraq to bolster support for the war.
Untrue. It is still upheld that Al Qaeda training camps existed in northern Iraq before the war. They have proof the camp was being used even 1 month before the beginning of the invasion. Secondly, Iraqi disposed commanders are now in charge of these Al Qaeda cells which are in Iraq. If Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda, why would Iraqi officials be "leading" Al Qaeda members to attack civilians and U.S. soldiers?
As for N Korea, Bush claiming it was part of his "Axis of Evil" didn't help. NK has now seen what has happened to one third of that (Iraq) and is now trying to make sure it isn't the next target. At this point, you can't really blame it for developing a nuclear deterrant.
Again, untrue. North Korea has admitted to never stopping it's nuclear amibitions following the consessions made with Carter on behalf of Clinton in 1994. Their buildup of nuclear arsenol never stopped, therefore stating they want a nuclear deterrant is FALSE.
I do not no why this story was approved by slashdot admins. This is obviously another blatent attempt to attack President Bush on his decision to go into and remove Saddam from power. If this wasn't Bush-bashing... if it was, for instance, Clinton bashing, it would have been rejected in a second.
But no matter what anyone says, things have changed since September 11... and GW Bush is NOT GHW Bush. The two situations, the two men, are two different things and can not be compared. While the points made by GHW Bush in 1998 are true and accurate, they do not consider the relevance of such a move post 9/11.
The arguements will come in that 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq.. and Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq, but current news would disagree with that assessment. Clinton's inaction in 1994 regarding N Korea has led to another rogue nation with nuclear weapons... leaving Saddam alone could have had the same effect.
As we see, this is another instance in which the socialists wish to control us. This is just another way for the liberal socialists to limit (if not completely destroy) our freedom of expression and freedom of choice.
Under the false umbrella of "best for the people", the socialists will continue to insert themselves more into our lives disallowing us to even think for ourselves (read: 1984).
Stations make fun of themselves all the time, and their affiliates. Saturday Night Live constantly makes fun of NBC (as well as other channels), and Letterman is KNOWN for his CBS cracks. Remember Fox's first hit Married With Children? Every other episode they had a Fox crack.
This is rediculous from every perspective. I am a fan of both the Simpsons and Fox News, and found that particular episode to be quiet comical and laughed by ass off the entire time. It plays to the democratic claims that Fox News is right-biased. Anyone with any brains can see it's an exaggeration, just as 99.999999% of the things on the Simpsons are. It's all over the top, that's what made the Simpsons so popular for so long.
So you're saying if we legalize drugs, then drug usage would go down... and it would cost less?
Great, I have a way to reduce crime AND save the country billions a year!
Let's legalize murder, prostitution, money laundering, and assault. Hell, we spend $50k per inmate per year when they're convicted of these crimes, so let's just legalize them! At the same time, the rate of these crimes will go down, just because it's now legal!
WOW! This is genius, thank you for educating me. Idiot.
You can easily require that treatment options be reviewed with purchasers, that money to buy drugs comes from verifyable sources (no cash provision), and a whole slew of other protections.
And that doesn't cost money? C'mon, it'd cost billions just to maintain that beaurocracy! Increase the size of government to patrol what we do, great job Mr Stalin!
Oh and just a word of advise, don't believe anything the ACLU says. This is the same organization that says it's inhumane to kill convicted murders, but okay to kill innocent, unborn children. Of course, if we legalize murders, I guess this hypocracy wouldn't exist anymore, huh?
Drug policy is not based solely on what's best for the kids, but what's best for the community. BTW, it's the job of the government to protect the people, and one way they do this is through making drugs illegal.
Like a previous poster said, alcohol and cigarettes are a perfect example of legalized drugs. And as you replied, it's not a complete comparison because of the penalties enforced.
From the civil rights aspect, sure, let people get all the drugs they want... it's their choice, it's their life.. right? Well, what happens when they overdose? Leave them in the streets because they dont have health insurance? Or do we hospitalize them... give them medicine... rehab them... ??? With who's money.. this would costs tens of thousands of dollars per person every time they're found in the street? With my money? I think not! Because of society's general ideal of helping those in need, we will never let some drug overdose "victim" (or, no longer a victim, actually, so we'll say subject) lay in the street dying. This is where the problem is. You would not be able to successfully tax illicit drug sales in order to defray the cost of hospital care, and even if you could, you'd be selling it for more than it could be bought on the streets.
The second issue is the known crime caused by drug addicts. Because of the addiciton caused by stuff like heroin, addicts will do anything they can to obtain the drug. This includes theft, prostitution, or in the worst cases assault and murder for hire. In fact, a murder can occur simply because someone was attempted to get $20 for his next high. This is a public safety issue in general.
The third issue is the quality of the work force. Legalizing drugs which impair judgement would eventually mean companies could not screen individuals (although, at first drug screening would hold up, it wouldnt be long before the ACLU challenged the privacy legality of the tests). The cause would be an ineffective work force, forcing companies to go out of business. This could also cause hostilities in a work place.
The fourth point, is that sentences for selling to minors would be just as lax as they are now with alcohol and cigarettes. Society's view would be one of "well he's just acting more drown up" because drug usage would be considered an "adult act".
The fifth and final point, do we want more corporations like "big tobacco" running our lives? Would they be required to state the inevitable side effects of the usage of their product? Would they be responsible for crimes being commited by those addicted to their drug? Would they be civilly sued for not disclosing that their drug was harmful? (etc etc, you get my point). What we will have is another company "attacking our children" as some liberals would say, and therefore they must be stopped.
I hear walking is much more efficient. You can walk a mile on only a small meal, prob the equivalent of 1/2lb of vegatables. This, of course, makes it more efficient.
Of course, if you have a 60 mile commute like I do, I'd need to eat about 30lbs of vegatables.... as well as allow approximately 12 hours of commute to walk those 60 miles. Which means I would have to leave for home the second I get to work in order to leave in time to get to work ontime the next day. Oh boy...
Now, 600 years later, a European colony is the world's dominant economic, technological and military power
You're talking about the United States, right? Because last time I checked, the United States was still the largest economic house in the world, still the leader of technology innovation, and definately has the most well trained, well equipped and well educated military in the world.
Of course I know you were talking about China... silly me. But nonetheless your statement (if about China) is incorrect, not to say it won't be correct in 50 years, mind you, but that's another story, and a lot can change in 50 years. A lot can change in 20 years....
NOW!!!!!!
U.S. citizens should realize that saying the US has a right to do whatever it wants is not compatible with saying other nations have no right to distrust the US - or to do things in their self-interest.
The U.S. citizens *do* realize it's the same thing. Remember, the U.S. is the starting point of democracy, and recognizes the view points of people differ and allows them to freely express those view points.
But another thing is, we don't CARE what other people think of us... which is another reason why *some* foreigners, particularly in Europe, do not like us even more. if we cow-towwed to their crap, we'd be the weak little brother of the great European Socialism and not visa versa (which it has been since WWII).
My point, however, is that it is human nation to distrust... and human nature to not be trustworthy. So to think that anyone is always going to trust everything is just foolish.
It was Clinton's great mistake to trade with China without China making human rights concessions.
Clinton, being the type of liberal I originally responded to, ya know, the kind that say, "oh everyone should get along... la la la everything is so wonderful" while collecting his campaign contributions from Chinese military officials, had no problem easing trade with China in exchange for that cash.