"So what does "trusted" mean here? It means that your software can manage data and behave in a predictable manner, enforcing specified rules for manipulating the data."
This seems like such a vague statement. Trusted by who? The OS? the owner of the computer? Microsoft?
In the end I suspect trusted will mean trusted by Microsoft. So the real question is how does one get trusted by MS especially if you are writing an open source application.
I wish the release of VS studio.NET would have gotten more press. Especially the part of the EULA for that which says you are not allowed to write GPLed code with it.
" Just because something is the root of all evil does not make it evil in and of itself."
Yea that's what jesus said. He did not say money is the root of all evil, he said love of money is the root of all evil. You of course are entitled to your own opinion.
"People do evil things to get more money."
Jesus says simply wanting money is evil. He has said on more then one occasion that accumulating wealth is evil.
Of course you may not buy that argument and may have your own belief system or like most christians simply ignore those parts of the bible that don't suit you. Like you I don't even believe in god. I am simply pointing out that there are belief systems out there (christianity being the foremost but budhism can be counted as well) that view accumulation of wealth as evil.
"People also do evil things in the name of religion (refer to middle ages, the Isreal/Palistinian situation, and 9/11)."
Absolutely. I don't know where I saw this but I am going to try to quote it. "Gods don't kill people, people with gods people kill people"
Jesus claims that it's very hard for a rich man to enter into heaven. The bible also states that the love of money is the root of all evil.
If you buy this then all corporations are by definition evil. Why is a corporation formed except to pursue the accumulation of money? Why would you accumulate money if you did not love it?
The newton episode may have been a cute story but the underlying principle is solid. The entire quantum mechanics grew out of Max Planck's asking the seemingly stupid question "why does a black metal turn red when you heat it"?
What if Newton thought the same thing when an apple fell on his head. Instead of thinking "it's just a coincidence" he gave it some thought and changed history.
The mark of a true scientist is to stop and wonder why.
The govt probably produces more code then any commercial company. The govt can encourage any technology it wants if it's in the interest of national security or the general welfare of it's citizens.
The US govt is very busy standardising on MS products in order to help an American company and there is no reason why other countries can't do similar things to help out their own companies.
Claiming coincidence is not a explanation. The article stated that it's extremely rare for this to happen so you'd think that a scientist would wonder if there was something going on to to manifest this thing. Otherwise sheer coincidence can explain just about anything.
What I found interesting was that there was no attempt made to try and explain this phenomena. All then talk about is how rare it is and how they are unrelated. You'd think a scientist would exhibit at least some curiosity about the subject.
"Actually many of the Jews encouraged to migrate to the Middle East because of Zionism have ancestory from Khazaria thus have more of a claim of the city of Volgograd than Jerusalem. "
I might also mention that a significant percentage of the settlers are from the united states. Somehow an American born and raised in Chicago feels he/she is more entitled to a plot of land in Jerusalem then the family that has lived there for generations because he is a jew and god promised him that land.
Also jewish missionaries have been recruiting in south america (columbia I think). They convert people to Judaism and them ship them to palestine to form new settlements.
What I need is to find a god which promised me some land in Fiji or the bahamas or something so I can go there, kill the residents and take over their land in good conscience.
"Yes, you don't know. You don't know anything, it seems."
What is this mean? DO you mean to say that because I don't know one thing I don't know anything? I must have missed that day in my logic class. Deal with the facts and refrain from ad hominem please.
"And do you know what kind of mental problems would be caused by seeing a terror attack? I really wish you saw one."
Yes I do as a matter of fact. The fact that you would inflict the same kind of horror on the palestenians as they inflict on you makes you the same in my eyes. You are no better then those terrorists that blow themselves up.
"And what do you think is the reason for all recent house destructions and curfews if not terror attacks?"
There were no suicide bombings for six weeks yet the curfews were not lifted and the troops did not pull out. Apparently the suicide attacks are not the primary justfication for curfews. I could also very easily make the case that the reason for suicide bombings is that Israel has instituted a system of morally bankrupt apartheid.
"Tens of terror attack attempts used to come from Jenin daily before the anti-terror actions. No wonder that bulldozer operator wants to level that town. But he isn't allowed to, instead tens of soldiers die trying to get only the gunmen without the citizens. "
If that is your justification for destroying houses of innocent people and killing of innocent civilians then there is no sense in trying to have an argument with you. You are morally corrupt and are willing to kill any palestenians who happens to live in a city that a terrorist came from. Imagine if the US had the same type of a criminal justice system. Imagine if in response to the columbine attacks the US govt decided to destroy 500 houses in some colorado town and killed a few hundred residents. Thank god that will never happen. Thank god we live in a civilized society that still respects human rights. Israel has sunk into barbarism of the worst sort if it feels morally justified in destroying a city because suicide bombers come from there.
""Bloodthursty"? Twice? And you think your comments are objective? Try to read what you've just wrote, please."
Bloodthirsty is a very accurate adjective. I don't claim that my comments are objective just that my arguments are based on facts. Please deal with the facts that I have provided and disprove them.
"Again wrong. Both Sharon and Netanyahu are not religous (Barak and Peres too, of course). You are slightly confused. It's the arab terrorists who blow themselves in the name of god."
The settlements are there because the israelis believe that god promised them that land. The israelis don't make the palestenians living under their jurisdiction because they have a religious belief that israel should be a jewish state. At the core this conflict is all about religion.
"just a mile away from the territories"
Move away. Get yourself as far from that pit of evil as fast as possible.
"Are you seriously saying that reprinting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not anti-Jewish?"
I have no idea what those are. Why would it be anti jewish.
"Then how about five and six years old calling Jews dirty pigs and apes that must be destroyed on state TV?"
Maybe he said that because some israeli killed someone he knew, or destroyed his house, or kep him and his family under curfew. DO you think that seeing the death and destruction caused by the state of israel is healthy for a young person. Imagine what kind of mental problems would be caused by seeing that much death and destruction?
"Or what about firing people solely for being Israeli, even though they are long-standing Palestinian rights advocates (Mona Baker anyone?"
Didn't the Israeli Supreme court recently decide that the relatives of arabs who commit crimes can be expelled?
"Or how about dedicating untold amounts of editorial space to rants about fictitious massacres without publishing a retraction"
Personally since the israeli army kept the investigative team out I don't think we will ever know what realy happened. It's not like they don't have the resources to clean up after themselves. Besides which all of this is rather tame compared the columns written in the US papers by Mona Charon , Ann Coulter etc. Have you read them? I think Ann called for rounding up "swarthy men".
"And what about people who whine about fake atrocities yet couldn't care less about little children being blown to bits in pizzerias"
The israelis also couln't care less about little children blown to bits. Just today I read a quote in the local paper from a bulldozer operator who said that he had cleared a stadium sized area in jenin and he was sorry that he did not get a chance to level the entire town.
" I'm trying really really hard to continue believing that European anti-Israeli sentiments aren't indicative of a resurgence of age-old virulent anti-semitism, but it's getting more and more difficult every day."
It's not. It's a rational response to brutal and bloodthirsty govt in Israel. COnsider this. Ariel Sharon can actually lose the next election to Netanyahu who is even more racist and bloodthirsty. As John Stewart (jewish comedian) once said. You know you are in trouble when Ariel Sharon is your soft compromising center (or something to that effect). Blaming the critism on anti semitism is a cop out because you don't want to face the evil shadow that the israeli govt has fallen into.
Why not deal with the facts. Here are some that you can try and justify if you'd like.
1) Israel kills more pleastenians then the other way around every year. The ratio was somewhere around 5 to 1 last I checked. For every Israeli killed by a suicide bomber five palestenians die by US weapons.
2) Israel is focibly occupying the palestenians. It's the only country in the world right now which is militarily occupying a people. In fact in all aspects what israel is doing is no different the apartheid as practiced by the south african govt a while back.
3) Israel has an official policy of torturing people. It does so regularly.
4) Israel routinely arrests people without charges, without access to lawyers and without any due process whatsoever and holds them as long as it wants to.
5) israel is currently holding 800,000 people under curfew. Some have been under curfew for over three months. There is massive malnutrition and starvation as a result not to mention abject poverty and rampant disease.
6) Sharon does not want peace.
7) Under Baraks proposal 85 percent of the settlements and all of east jerusalem would remain under israeli control and the palestenians would still not have the right move freely also they would still not have the equitable access to water. In fact Israel will never ever remove the illegal settlements because they believe that God promised them that land (presumably god also told them to kill people to get it too).
I know the facts are harsh in this situation but any reasonable person has to look at them and conclude that in no way shape or form is Israel acting morally.
If Israel's position is that the lands were taken as a result of war (we won it fair and square) then it is obligated to give citizenship to people it conquered. But this will never happen because zionism demands that Israel be controlled by Jews and if too many arabs have the vote that control would go away.
If Israel's position is that this is a continuing war then it needs to obey the geneva convention and stop torturing prisoners of war and treat civilians humanely.
Otherwise what israel is doing is a combination of Apartheid and ethnic cleansing. It is both occupying and denying citizenship to arabs under it's terroterial control at the same time killing them by thousands per year and expelling them whenever it wants to.
BTW. None of this is jew bashing but all of it is Israel bashing. If they are the same thing and you plan on accusing me of anti-simitism please start your post by saying "Since zionism is the same thing as racism any criticism of israel is by default criticism of the jewish people". You may also throw a phrase or two in there about how even though both the jews and the palestenians are semititic people anti semitism only applies to jews.
The difference is that you are not differentiating between adult salmon coming upstream (of which there were record levels) and salmon smolts returning to the sea (which got screwed). Are we clear now?
No It's you who is still confused. Go re-read those articles. The fish that died were swimming up to spawn. How can you possibly keep arguing this point when you don't even bother to read the article?
"The problem with this is that it all comes back to the dams"
No the problem is chronic abuse of limited water resources.
"I don't know how you fix the problem"
Too late to solve the problem. After decades of abuse and unsustainable farming we are at this point. Farm or fish you can't have both. This is exactly the argument we have been having on this thread. There is not an infinate amount of water, air, land or anything else in this world. Eventually the ability of nature to sustain life gets strained to the breaking point. In this case George Bush chose to side with the farmers because the fish don't vote and the Indians don't vote republican.
"Water rights are a big political issue out West."
Water rights (and other silly "rights" like mineral rights) were invented to screw the indians and to deprive them of the use of their land. They are ancient laws written when the western ethic was being born. In the old days there was an infinate amount of water, fish, buffalo, elk and everything else. Out of that was born the western ethic which reads basically "It's all for me. I can kill as much as I want, I can take as much as I want and nobody can tell me otherwise and if they try I will shoot them with my gun". Water rights, mineral rights, grazing rights yadda yadda yadda it's all about selfishness, greed and abuse of the land. Go to any small town in the west and talk about the environment and you'll be lucky if you leave the building without holes in your body.
"Whose FTC let the megamergers of the 90's go through in the first place?"
Who did MS merge with?
"Whose DoJ botched the handling of Microsoft to begin with?"
At least they were going after them. As soon as Ashcroft took office he fell to his knees and started suckling on Bill Gates' member.
"Smart politicians don't stand in the way of letting businesses succeed."
Even if means harm to consumers or breaks the law?
"Lucky ones guess correctly when to step in and stop them."
The Clinton administration tried MS twice. First time MS simply ignored the rulings against them the second time is still in going on.
"Bill Clinton is a very smart politician. He's not a terribly lucky one."
Very true. Bush is getting away with things ten times as worse thanks to some terrorists. Sept 11 was the best thing that could even happen to the current administration.
"It's funny that you have labeled me a Republican and a tool for "big business" because I am not."
I did not call you a republican although perhaps I should have. I said republicans and big business fight enviromental laws and enviromentalists. So do you so I guess that does kind of make a republican and a tool for big business. Maybe this is a case of if the shoe fits.
"These people want a better life for themselves, and who are you to try and deny it from them? "
No I don't want to deny it from them. I am simply saying that they will never have a better life till their military might exceeds ours. We took it all, we will continue to take it all and there is nothing left for them. There is nothing they can do about it Sorry so sad. We fucked it all up and they get screwed. When the shit starts hitting the fan do you think any american is going to sacrifice his SUV? of course not. We will kill people in the third world so that they stop spewing carbon monoxide and so that we can continue spewing ours. They are going to die and will never get to ride those nice SUVs unless they can repel our airplanes and bombs.
"There were record numbers of Salmon all over the Pacific Northwest. "
Look man it's not good to wallow in ignorance or to tout your ignorance on public forums. Why don't you start reading the news for change instead of relying on the word of Rush or Bill O'reilly. Here start with this. This or this
I'll summarize for you. The farmers of oregon irresponsibly used water threatning the salmon population. the govt cut off the water The farmers yelled and screamed George Bush got into power and turned the water on for the farmers As a direct result the largest salmon kill in history happened in the lower klamath river.
Notice I said nothing about dams anywhere in this post or any other.
Why don't you spend some time educating yourself instead of posting here. It's not good to wallow in ignorance and worse yet to broadcast it to the entire world.
"I might have overstated the case slightly, but I am certainly no liar. "
Yes you are a liar. There is no doubt about it. Go and re-read that snippet you posted. Point out one thing that is false or alarmist. He is simply pointing out that the potential cost of ignoring this data can be very costly. You disagree with him and that alarms you. It alarms you that a prominent scientist has gathered data that reinforces the views of people you hate. I realize that his data and his conclusions are alarming to republicans and big business but to paraphrase David Bryne "facts don't do what you want them to". Sorry. In order to avoid talking about the facts and because you are unable to disprove the data you attack him personally and the entire environmental movement hoping that your hysteria will somehow disprove his facts. Too bad you are not a climatologist, oceanographer or a meteorologist so all you can do is parrot Rush Limbaugh and try to pass yourself off as knowledgable. I think I will take the word of experts on this one.
"Yet somehow this doesn't stop the environmentalists from tying climate change to their political agenda."
Even if this was true so what? Why shouldn't they? Are the republicans and big business not politizing the issue? Are they not buying bogus research? are they not buying politicians? Are they not working very hard to convince people that global warming does not exist, and even if does it's good for you? Apparently you want to deny the environmentalist the same freedom of expression and franchise that bug business has. Too bad for you we still live in a democracy. What this scientist has done is one billionth of David Horowitz does.
"Right now the first world enjoys the benefits of massive industrialization, but the rest of the world isn't that far behind. I have lived all over Central and South America, and those folks want what the U.S has. They want SUVs and microwaves."
So what? Sorry we took it all. We screwed not only the third world but future generations as well. Sorry so sad you don't get to play our game until you build up a military more powerful then ours. There is only so much atmosphere to go around and if we fucked it up then they don't get to use those SUVs.
For an excellant and recent example of this look at what happened in Oregon. Due to extended draught the water was shut off to farmers to protect salmon. The farmers complained and threatened violence. The Bush Administration decided to give in and turned on the water for the farmers. Now the salmon are dying by the tens of thousands. All those dead salmon will never spawn and this will cause ripple effects in the future and up and down the food chain. Sorry so sad you can't have both. Either farming or fishing pick one. After decades of abusing their water, not caring about the future or people living downstream after decades of non sustainable activities the camel's back is broken.
Farming or salmon pick one because you can't have both anymore. Welcome to the future when equally hard choices will be presented to you curtesy of the republicans who treat the word sustainability as an insult to the american way of life.
"These groups monitor all sorts of variables, and every time they see a change they start talking about THE END OF THE WORLD. "
That is a flat out lie. Go back and re-read the article. It made no such statement or implication.
You are obviously a liar and there is no need to listen to you anymore.
" I just don't see the point in worrying about potential catastrophes where the fix is worse than the problem."
In addition to being a liar you are an idiot. How is conserving gasoline, driving more fuel efficient cars, using cleaner fuels worse then the problem?
" It's not like we can simply turn off all the machines, and we also aren't likely to slow down population growth without the extreme use of military force."
In addition to being a lying idiot it's obvious you have no imagination. Apparently you think the only way to help the atmosphere is to turn off all machines and the only way to control the population is by military force.
"One can argue that city folk are unfairly subsidizing Nevada hillbillies."
Well duh!. That's my point exactly. The people in cities always subsidize the rural areas. People of NY and California make it possible for people in montana and south dakota to live comfortable lives. That's the role of the govt to try and ensure all citizens are taken care of.
Who do you think pays for dairy subsidies, farm subsidies, plowing of thousands of miles of highways that span teh vast emptiness that is the midwest? It's the new yorkers and californians.
As for the chip I don't know. The chinese govt does not run like the US does. The Chinese are as a race generally smarter then white people. Culturally chinese are also much harder working then Americans. I would not bet against them.
Slashdot Mirror
How could he possibly name them if they are secret?
"So what does "trusted" mean here? It means that your software can manage data and behave in a predictable manner, enforcing specified rules for manipulating the data."
This seems like such a vague statement. Trusted by who? The OS? the owner of the computer? Microsoft?
In the end I suspect trusted will mean trusted by Microsoft. So the real question is how does one get trusted by MS especially if you are writing an open source application.
Either way it's clear that they have been infected with the open source cancer.
Now they are all communists too! Yea!
I wish the release of VS studio .NET would have gotten more press. Especially the part of the EULA for that which says you are not allowed to write GPLed code with it.
" Just because something is the root of all evil does not make it evil in and of itself."
Yea that's what jesus said. He did not say money is the root of all evil, he said love of money is the root of all evil. You of course are entitled to your own opinion.
"People do evil things to get more money."
Jesus says simply wanting money is evil. He has said on more then one occasion that accumulating wealth is evil.
Of course you may not buy that argument and may have your own belief system or like most christians simply ignore those parts of the bible that don't suit you. Like you I don't even believe in god. I am simply pointing out that there are belief systems out there (christianity being the foremost but budhism can be counted as well) that view accumulation of wealth as evil.
"People also do evil things in the name of religion (refer to middle ages, the Isreal/Palistinian situation, and 9/11)."
Absolutely. I don't know where I saw this but I am going to try to quote it. "Gods don't kill people, people with gods people kill people"
It depends on your definition of good and evil.
Jesus claims that it's very hard for a rich man to enter into heaven. The bible also states that the love of money is the root of all evil.
If you buy this then all corporations are by definition evil. Why is a corporation formed except to pursue the accumulation of money? Why would you accumulate money if you did not love it?
Last I checked a very small percentage of americans ever graduated from collage (under 20% I think).
Most grad schools are full of foreigners.
If you want to measure the intelligence of the US public don't look at school.
MS has a monopoly. They have to play by different rules and get judged by different criterea.
The newton episode may have been a cute story but the underlying principle is solid. The entire quantum mechanics grew out of Max Planck's asking the seemingly stupid question "why does a black metal turn red when you heat it"?
I never saw the movie sorry.
What if Newton thought the same thing when an apple fell on his head. Instead of thinking "it's just a coincidence" he gave it some thought and changed history.
The mark of a true scientist is to stop and wonder why.
The govt probably produces more code then any commercial company.
The govt can encourage any technology it wants if it's in the interest of national security or the general welfare of it's citizens.
The US govt is very busy standardising on MS products in order to help an American company and there is no reason why other countries can't do similar things to help out their own companies.
Claiming coincidence is not a explanation. The article stated that it's extremely rare for this to happen so you'd think that a scientist would wonder if there was something going on to to manifest this thing. Otherwise sheer coincidence can explain just about anything.
What I found interesting was that there was no attempt made to try and explain this phenomena. All then talk about is how rare it is and how they are unrelated. You'd think a scientist would exhibit at least some curiosity about the subject.
""Also, I was calling the "Zombied Windows Server Admins" idiots not all Windows Server Admins. Reading is fundamental..."
Regardless, the insult was unnecessary and inappropriate. Quit demostrating that the Linux community is full of nothing but technical know-nothings."
I think the insult was rather lame compared being called communist, terrorist or un american.
Excellent. I think that we should all start pushing the fact that windows is only good for games. Real business requires another operating system.
"Actually many of the Jews encouraged to migrate to the Middle East because of Zionism have ancestory from Khazaria thus have more of a claim of the city of Volgograd than Jerusalem. "
I might also mention that a significant percentage of the settlers are from the united states. Somehow an American born and raised in Chicago feels he/she is more entitled to a plot of land in Jerusalem then the family that has lived there for generations because he is a jew and god promised him that land.
Also jewish missionaries have been recruiting in south america (columbia I think). They convert people to Judaism and them ship them to palestine to form new settlements.
What I need is to find a god which promised me some land in Fiji or the bahamas or something so I can go there, kill the residents and take over their land in good conscience.
"Yes, you don't know. You don't know anything, it seems."
What is this mean? DO you mean to say that because I don't know one thing I don't know anything? I must have missed that day in my logic class. Deal with the facts and refrain from ad hominem please.
"And do you know what kind of mental problems would be caused by seeing a terror attack? I really wish you saw one."
Yes I do as a matter of fact. The fact that you would inflict the same kind of horror on the palestenians as they inflict on you makes you the same in my eyes. You are no better then those terrorists that blow themselves up.
"And what do you think is the reason for all recent house destructions and curfews if not terror attacks?"
There were no suicide bombings for six weeks yet the curfews were not lifted and the troops did not pull out. Apparently the suicide attacks are not the primary justfication for curfews. I could also very easily make the case that the reason for suicide bombings is that Israel has instituted a system of morally bankrupt apartheid.
"Tens of terror attack attempts used to come from Jenin daily before the anti-terror actions. No wonder that bulldozer operator wants to level that town. But he isn't allowed to, instead tens of soldiers die trying to get only the gunmen without the citizens. "
If that is your justification for destroying houses of innocent people and killing of innocent civilians then there is no sense in trying to have an argument with you. You are morally corrupt and are willing to kill any palestenians who happens to live in a city that a terrorist came from. Imagine if the US had the same type of a criminal justice system. Imagine if in response to the columbine attacks the US govt decided to destroy 500 houses in some colorado town and killed a few hundred residents. Thank god that will never happen. Thank god we live in a civilized society that still respects human rights. Israel has sunk into barbarism of the worst sort if it feels morally justified in destroying a city because suicide bombers come from there.
""Bloodthursty"? Twice? And you think your comments are objective? Try to read what you've just wrote, please."
Bloodthirsty is a very accurate adjective. I don't claim that my comments are objective just that my arguments are based on facts. Please deal with the facts that I have provided and disprove them.
"Again wrong. Both Sharon and Netanyahu are not religous (Barak and Peres too, of course). You are slightly confused. It's the arab terrorists who blow themselves in the name of god."
The settlements are there because the israelis believe that god promised them that land. The israelis don't make the palestenians living under their jurisdiction because they have a religious belief that israel should be a jewish state. At the core this conflict is all about religion.
"just a mile away from the territories"
Move away. Get yourself as far from that pit of evil as fast as possible.
"Are you seriously saying that reprinting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not anti-Jewish?"
I have no idea what those are. Why would it be anti jewish.
"Then how about five and six years old calling Jews dirty pigs and apes that must be destroyed on state TV?"
Maybe he said that because some israeli killed someone he knew, or destroyed his house, or kep him and his family under curfew. DO you think that seeing the death and destruction caused by the state of israel is healthy for a young person. Imagine what kind of mental problems would be caused by seeing that much death and destruction?
"Or what about firing people solely for being Israeli, even though they are long-standing Palestinian rights advocates (Mona Baker anyone?"
Didn't the Israeli Supreme court recently decide that the relatives of arabs who commit crimes can be expelled?
"Or how about dedicating untold amounts of editorial space to rants about fictitious massacres without publishing a retraction"
Personally since the israeli army kept the investigative team out I don't think we will ever know what realy happened. It's not like they don't have the resources to clean up after themselves. Besides which all of this is rather tame compared the columns written in the US papers by Mona Charon , Ann Coulter etc. Have you read them? I think Ann called for rounding up "swarthy men".
"And what about people who whine about fake atrocities yet couldn't care less about little children being blown to bits in pizzerias"
The israelis also couln't care less about little children blown to bits. Just today I read a quote in the local paper from a bulldozer operator who said that he had cleared a stadium sized area in jenin and he was sorry that he did not get a chance to level the entire town.
" I'm trying really really hard to continue believing that European anti-Israeli sentiments aren't indicative of a resurgence of age-old virulent anti-semitism, but it's getting more and more difficult every day."
It's not. It's a rational response to brutal and bloodthirsty govt in Israel. COnsider this. Ariel Sharon can actually lose the next election to Netanyahu who is even more racist and bloodthirsty. As John Stewart (jewish comedian) once said. You know you are in trouble when Ariel Sharon is your soft compromising center (or something to that effect). Blaming the critism on anti semitism is a cop out because you don't want to face the evil shadow that the israeli govt has fallen into.
All in the name of god. How ironic.
Why not deal with the facts. Here are some that you can try and justify if you'd like.
1) Israel kills more pleastenians then the other way around every year. The ratio was somewhere around 5 to 1 last I checked. For every Israeli killed by a suicide bomber five palestenians die by US weapons.
2) Israel is focibly occupying the palestenians. It's the only country in the world right now which is militarily occupying a people. In fact in all aspects what israel is doing is no different the apartheid as practiced by the south african govt a while back.
3) Israel has an official policy of torturing people. It does so regularly.
4) Israel routinely arrests people without charges, without access to lawyers and without any due process whatsoever and holds them as long as it wants to.
5) israel is currently holding 800,000 people under curfew. Some have been under curfew for over three months. There is massive malnutrition and starvation as a result not to mention abject poverty and rampant disease.
6) Sharon does not want peace.
7) Under Baraks proposal 85 percent of the settlements and all of east jerusalem would remain under israeli control and the palestenians would still not have the right move freely also they would still not have the equitable access to water. In fact Israel will never ever remove the illegal settlements because they believe that God promised them that land (presumably god also told them to kill people to get it too).
I know the facts are harsh in this situation but any reasonable person has to look at them and conclude that in no way shape or form is Israel acting morally.
If Israel's position is that the lands were taken as a result of war (we won it fair and square) then it is obligated to give citizenship to people it conquered. But this will never happen because zionism demands that Israel be controlled by Jews and if too many arabs have the vote that control would go away.
If Israel's position is that this is a continuing war then it needs to obey the geneva convention and stop torturing prisoners of war and treat civilians humanely.
Otherwise what israel is doing is a combination of Apartheid and ethnic cleansing. It is both occupying and denying citizenship to arabs under it's terroterial control at the same time killing them by thousands per year and expelling them whenever it wants to.
BTW. None of this is jew bashing but all of it is Israel bashing. If they are the same thing and you plan on accusing me of anti-simitism please start your post by saying "Since zionism is the same thing as racism any criticism of israel is by default criticism of the jewish people". You may also throw a phrase or two in there about how even though both the jews and the palestenians are semititic people anti semitism only applies to jews.
The difference is that you are not differentiating between adult salmon coming upstream (of which there were record levels) and salmon smolts returning to the sea (which got screwed). Are we clear now?
No It's you who is still confused. Go re-read those articles. The fish that died were swimming up to spawn. How can you possibly keep arguing this point when you don't even bother to read the article?
"The problem with this is that it all comes back to the dams"
No the problem is chronic abuse of limited water resources.
"I don't know how you fix the problem"
Too late to solve the problem. After decades of abuse and unsustainable farming we are at this point. Farm or fish you can't have both. This is exactly the argument we have been having on this thread. There is not an infinate amount of water, air, land or anything else in this world. Eventually the ability of nature to sustain life gets strained to the breaking point. In this case George Bush chose to side with the farmers because the fish don't vote and the Indians don't vote republican.
"Water rights are a big political issue out West."
Water rights (and other silly "rights" like mineral rights) were invented to screw the indians and to deprive them of the use of their land. They are ancient laws written when the western ethic was being born. In the old days there was an infinate amount of water, fish, buffalo, elk and everything else. Out of that was born the western ethic which reads basically "It's all for me. I can kill as much as I want, I can take as much as I want and nobody can tell me otherwise and if they try I will shoot them with my gun". Water rights, mineral rights, grazing rights yadda yadda yadda it's all about selfishness, greed and abuse of the land. Go to any small town in the west and talk about the environment and you'll be lucky if you leave the building without holes in your body.
"What, because it's Republican? "
Why yes.
"Whose FTC let the megamergers of the 90's go through in the first place?"
Who did MS merge with?
"Whose DoJ botched the handling of Microsoft to begin with?"
At least they were going after them. As soon as Ashcroft took office he fell to his knees and started suckling on Bill Gates' member.
"Smart politicians don't stand in the way of letting businesses succeed."
Even if means harm to consumers or breaks the law?
"Lucky ones guess correctly when to step in and stop them."
The Clinton administration tried MS twice. First time MS simply ignored the rulings against them the second time is still in going on.
"Bill Clinton is a very smart politician. He's not a terribly lucky one."
Very true. Bush is getting away with things ten times as worse thanks to some terrorists. Sept 11 was the best thing that could even happen to the current administration.
"It's funny that you have labeled me a Republican and a tool for "big business" because I am not."
I did not call you a republican although perhaps I should have. I said republicans and big business fight enviromental laws and enviromentalists. So do you so I guess that does kind of make a republican and a tool for big business. Maybe this is a case of if the shoe fits.
"These people want a better life for themselves, and who are you to try and deny it from them? "
No I don't want to deny it from them. I am simply saying that they will never have a better life till their military might exceeds ours. We took it all, we will continue to take it all and there is nothing left for them. There is nothing they can do about it Sorry so sad. We fucked it all up and they get screwed. When the shit starts hitting the fan do you think any american is going to sacrifice his SUV? of course not. We will kill people in the third world so that they stop spewing carbon monoxide and so that we can continue spewing ours. They are going to die and will never get to ride those nice SUVs unless they can repel our airplanes and bombs.
"There were record numbers of Salmon all over the Pacific Northwest. "
Look man it's not good to wallow in ignorance or to tout your ignorance on public forums. Why don't you start reading the news for change instead of relying on the word of Rush or Bill O'reilly. Here start with this.
This
or this
I'll summarize for you.
The farmers of oregon irresponsibly used water threatning the salmon population.
the govt cut off the water
The farmers yelled and screamed
George Bush got into power and turned the water on for the farmers
As a direct result the largest salmon kill in history happened in the lower klamath river.
Notice I said nothing about dams anywhere in this post or any other.
Why don't you spend some time educating yourself instead of posting here. It's not good to wallow in ignorance and worse yet to broadcast it to the entire world.
"I might have overstated the case slightly, but I am certainly no liar. "
Yes you are a liar. There is no doubt about it. Go and re-read that snippet you posted. Point out one thing that is false or alarmist. He is simply pointing out that the potential cost of ignoring this data can be very costly. You disagree with him and that alarms you. It alarms you that a prominent scientist has gathered data that reinforces the views of people you hate. I realize that his data and his conclusions are alarming to republicans and big business but to paraphrase David Bryne "facts don't do what you want them to". Sorry. In order to avoid talking about the facts and because you are unable to disprove the data you attack him personally and the entire environmental movement hoping that your hysteria will somehow disprove his facts. Too bad you are not a climatologist, oceanographer or a meteorologist so all you can do is parrot Rush Limbaugh and try to pass yourself off as knowledgable. I think I will take the word of experts on this one.
"Yet somehow this doesn't stop the environmentalists from tying climate change to their political agenda."
Even if this was true so what? Why shouldn't they? Are the republicans and big business not politizing the issue? Are they not buying bogus research? are they not buying politicians? Are they not working very hard to convince people that global warming does not exist, and even if does it's good for you? Apparently you want to deny the environmentalist the same freedom of expression and franchise that bug business has. Too bad for you we still live in a democracy. What this scientist has done is one billionth of David Horowitz does.
"Right now the first world enjoys the benefits of massive industrialization, but the rest of the world isn't that far behind. I have lived all over Central and South America, and those folks want what the U.S has. They want SUVs and microwaves."
So what? Sorry we took it all. We screwed not only the third world but future generations as well. Sorry so sad you don't get to play our game until you build up a military more powerful then ours. There is only so much atmosphere to go around and if we fucked it up then they don't get to use those SUVs.
For an excellant and recent example of this look at what happened in Oregon. Due to extended draught the water was shut off to farmers to protect salmon. The farmers complained and threatened violence. The Bush Administration decided to give in and turned on the water for the farmers. Now the salmon are dying by the tens of thousands. All those dead salmon will never spawn and this will cause ripple effects in the future and up and down the food chain. Sorry so sad you can't have both. Either farming or fishing pick one. After decades of abusing their water, not caring about the future or people living downstream after decades of non sustainable activities the camel's back is broken.
Farming or salmon pick one because you can't have both anymore. Welcome to the future when equally hard choices will be presented to you curtesy of the republicans who treat the word sustainability as an insult to the american way of life.
"These groups monitor all sorts of variables, and every time they see a change they start talking about THE END OF THE WORLD. "
That is a flat out lie. Go back and re-read the article. It made no such statement or implication.
You are obviously a liar and there is no need to listen to you anymore.
" I just don't see the point in worrying about potential catastrophes where the fix is worse than the problem."
In addition to being a liar you are an idiot. How is conserving gasoline, driving more fuel efficient cars, using cleaner fuels worse then the problem?
" It's not like we can simply turn off all the machines, and we also aren't likely to slow down population growth without the extreme use of military force."
In addition to being a lying idiot it's obvious you have no imagination. Apparently you think the only way to help the atmosphere is to turn off all machines and the only way to control the population is by military force.
"One can argue that city folk are unfairly subsidizing Nevada hillbillies."
Well duh!. That's my point exactly. The people in cities always subsidize the rural areas. People of NY and California make it possible for people in montana and south dakota to live comfortable lives. That's the role of the govt to try and ensure all citizens are taken care of.
Who do you think pays for dairy subsidies, farm subsidies, plowing of thousands of miles of highways that span teh vast emptiness that is the midwest? It's the new yorkers and californians.
As for the chip I don't know. The chinese govt does not run like the US does. The Chinese are as a race generally smarter then white people. Culturally chinese are also much harder working then Americans. I would not bet against them.