Your assumption that since you don't care about other people nobody else does, is incorrect. And my comment was not regarding your silly posturing about lawyers, but that nonsense about how the people of Bhopal should just get over it.
Well maybe they would if they could see, but many were blinded by the poison gas. Maybe they wouldn't pass on the problem if their children weren't born with birth defects. The water they drink is still contaminated because UC never even cleaned up the mess. Would 20 years be long enough for you to foget about your parents, brothers, sisters, children being killed by such neglicence?
A lot of countries have helped fund a regime responsible for the murder, toruture, and rape of hundreds of thousands of people.
The US is hardly in a position to point a finger at the UN on that charge. The US has often directly funded regimes which murder, torture, and rape their own people. Look at El Salvadore, Pinotchet in Chile, the Shah in Iran, and even Saddam himself back in the good old days. Gassing the Kurds was not a problem to the US as long as he was useful for fighting anti-western regimes.
Heh, just noticed this reply a week too late. Odds are you aren't going to see this, but since you wrote such a long reply to my post, I'm going to go ahead a reply anyway.
Admittedly, the article I linked to was not the best. I found a more pertinent one afterwards, but I don't have the link anymore. You're right that viewers of all tv news had misconceptions, but viewers of fox news had signficantly more misconceptions. Its hard to prove cause and effect with something like this, but its interesting to note that people who said they followed fox news closely were even more misinformed than those who watched it casually.
I don't think that fox news actually lies. I do think they are strongly biased, and it shows in the way they present the facts, who they choose to interview, how much time they devote to a story. Of course I can't prove this; proving something like that would require pouring over videotape with a stopwatch for hours (and would still be subjective).
Final point: you say that fox may be biased to the right, but other networks are biased to the left. I don't agree with this. The other news are biased to the center. They tend to downplay either extreme and try to balance one side with the other (even when such balance is absurd). The fact that people think that what cbs reports is the left's point of view shows how under-reported the views of the left actually are.
It would appear though that the claim that all Climate Scientists agree with the Global Warming ideas is just not so. There are a lot who think otherwise
No one claimed that all climate scientists agree. I said almost all. The fact that you live near some who don't doesn't refute that. However, I will back down from my original statement and go with 'the vast majority'. The main point of my post was that dismissing a theory based on the notion that all its proponents are a bunch of hippies is not a good way to arrive at the truth.
I learned a lot from these people including insights that are pretty deep. If you will remember the "Acid Rain" threat a few years ago that has disappeared from discussion.
Can you site any sources to back up this claim? Acid rain is not some new crackpot theory and it hasn't gone away as you suggest. The term was coined over 100 years ago for the very observable effects surrounding the immediate vicinity of factories. The much higher smoke stacks of modern factories disperse pollutants over a far wider area so its effects are now found far downwind and aren't limited to increasing corrosion of buildings in the vicinity and health problems of workers. I really don't see how a natural process in forests would suddenly raise rain pH and cause unbefore seen damage to forests, lakes and streams.
Anyone who wants to do climate prediction should be instantly suspect as some tree hugging radical whose agenda is to push some bullshit greenpeace agenda.
So anyone who studies climate is inherently untrustworthy? And THATS why almost all climate scientists believe global warming is a threat. What an amazingly effective means you've found for insulating yourself from anything that might challenge your uninformed opinion.
I agree with your main point, but not what you say about Fox news.
Why don't sub you fox news comment with a cbs comment. afterall they are the one making the news up instead of reporting it in a way you don't like.
They did not make up the story about Bush's service records, they were tricked into believing it. Whether they should have detected the fraud or not is a matter of opinion. Much like Bush's similar misstep.
BTW, what has fox news ever reported that was wrong or missleading?
Its not a bribe. Its only a bribe if it comes from a private citizen. Otherwise its a settlement or a payement. If it gets investigated, it may turn into an illegal payment, but its never a bribe.
Kind of like how if you sell your services as a soldier, you are a mercenary, but if you work for a company that sells your services as a soldier, you are a private military contractor.
Alot of people responded, but I don't think any of the responses hit the nail on the head so here's my attempt. Lets just look at the title. The title watchmen refers to the hero's themselves. Its meant to invoke the famous quote "who watches the watchmen" by Juvenal about controlling those in power - a major theme in the series. It also refers to the technicians and scientists driving the nuclear age with all its dangers as well as potential benefits. Extending this further, it refers to the notion of the universe as a deterministic mechanism and the place of fate and freewill. All this in comic book form with sex, violence and even pirates!
Can we please have a moritorium on stories from Linuxworld? That site feeds on stiring up stupid controversies. They cover 75% of their page with ads because they don't need regular readers - they just print shit about Linux and wait for the slashdot effect. Doesn't anybody remember the AIX source code fiasco?
they are willing to sacrifice innocent civilians to further their political agenda.
As is the US government. Or are you saying no civilians have been killed in Iraq?
Is being beheaded worse than being blown to pieces with a bomb? Is the fate of a man who intentionally went to a war torn country more tragic than the fate of a child who did not choose to be born into a country designated as part of the 'axis of evil'?
I respect that many soldiers went to Iraq for the best of reasons - they want to help the Iraqi people. But that is not the reason why the politicians started this war, and good intentions of US soldiers will not save that country.
with the exception of a few anti-war protestors being shot in the 1960s, I think the US can be credited with a bit more social restraint in 'managing' societal activities.
You should study the history of the US labor movement. While the death toll has never reached tiananmin levels, there are numerous instances of troops being used to break up strikes and protests, frequently firing upon and killing the protestors. The Ludlow Massacre is one prominent example. I'm not trying to say that the US has been as bad as China, merely pointing out that the Kent State incident is not alone, and is not the worst examples of this sort of thing.
Hope you find treatment that works. Sorry most everyone on slashdot is more interested in moralizing and critiquing your past choices than actually providing any help. I did see one actual piece of information that might help. In case you missed it:
One of the deservedly most-celebrated ID doctors in the world is Ralph Feigin at Baylor/Texas Children's [texaschild...spital.org].
Anyway good luck and thanks for all the Slack! Wouldn't be a programmer today without it!
They can be removed. The problem is that they can only be replaced by another representive in the pocket of the corporations. Anyone who is not supported by corporations will not be supported by the party machinery and will not be able to get their message across to the people.
Virginity is a pretty important aspect of the concept of maiden (as you can see with words like maidenhead). I'm not saying the translation is right, but the 'correct' definition he gives does not show it to be wrong since it encompasses virginity. If he wants to suggest that it doesn't imply virginity, he might want to choose another term. How about 'chick'?;)
Hard numbers about military spending is soft data, and your vague notions about things is hard data.
Numbers are not hard data if they are not relevant. Not only did you not site any actual numbers, you didn't provide an argument about how those numbers prove what you think it proves. I might just as well point to those numbers and say it proves that other nations are afraid. Wow, now I have "hard numbers" too!
You're so ignorant about what constitutes data and what "the other's" argument is that you self-righteously accuse me of your own biggest flaws, apparently without irony.
I'm enjoying some irony right now;)
I prefer to learn from people smarter than me, not more ignorant and less able to think than me.
Fortunately, this leaves you with plenty of options!:D
I find the list of uninvaded countries, untoppled regimes, and, germane to the topic, un-nuked cities is quite long
Are you saying every country we don't invade is evidence of how peaceful we are? Well the mongols left most of the world alone too, so I guess they were a peaceful people right:)
You say people aren't acting terrified. You think your vague notion of how people all over the world think and feel constitutes hard data. I say you have no idea how people feel or how they act, and you apparently have no idea what hard data is.
Why aren't they defending themselves? They are. Most are following the policy of sucking up to the US so it doesn't get mad at them. Some, like Iran, who are on the US's shit list are desperately trying to build WMDs so they don't have to worry about the US having more 'faultly intelligence' and deciding to invade them.
You want want to see an actual list of US use of military force? Try this one. Some of this stuff is pretty small, some not really invasions, but its only from 1890 on and leaves out the war with Mexico and almost all of the wars against the Indians. Read the whole list and tell me that people in places like Nicaragua don't have to worry about the American military.
There is evidence that he abused power in some ways
LMAO thats putting it delicately. Political opression, torture, corruption. The Iranian people hated him and rightly resented the US for proping him up. Unfortunately, the only people capable of orgainizing resistance were the fundamentalists which left them in a position to dictate the form of the new government. Kind of like what is going to happen in Iraq, our new 'friend' in the middle east.
While you'd attract some brighter people, you'd attract a whole slew of people that were just after some quick cash.
The same argument can be used regarding every other profession. Lets try it with doctors: if you pay doctors well, you'd attract a bunch of dumb people only interested in it for the money. You might counter that its hard to become a doctor and thats what keeps out the morons - well maybe it should be hard to become a teacher too (and pay them better) Low pay is a terrible way to ensure quality.
The same could be said for building a gigantic robotic Homer Simpson. But here's a thought - we could actually employ people building things that are more generally useful. It doesn't have to be some complex weapons system to lead jobs.
But even though you (and I!) can reel off a list of exceptions as long as your arm, people clearly understand those are exceptions...
I think if you compare the list of times Amercan forces have been used to protect America's interests versus the times they've been used for actual defense, you'll find the 'exceptions' are alot more common than the rule.
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
That is the biggest load of crap I've read today - and I've been reading Slashdot for two hours. Alot of the world needs US protection the way a whore needs the protection of her pimp.
Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II.
Religions don't hate people, people hate people. Muslem people have a far better history of religious tolerence than Christians. However, you will find alot of hatred around that region these days, possibly relating to the way Europeans keep fucking with them. In particular, taking the side of Isreal against the Palestinians, building military bases in their holy land, and supporting cruel military regimes like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein (ok we stopped doing that).
Slashdot Mirror
Your assumption that since you don't care about other people nobody else does, is incorrect. And my comment was not regarding your silly posturing about lawyers, but that nonsense about how the people of Bhopal should just get over it.
Well maybe they would if they could see, but many were blinded by the poison gas. Maybe they wouldn't pass on the problem if their children weren't born with birth defects. The water they drink is still contaminated because UC never even cleaned up the mess. Would 20 years be long enough for you to foget about your parents, brothers, sisters, children being killed by such neglicence?
A lot of countries have helped fund a regime responsible for the murder, toruture, and rape of hundreds of thousands of people.
The US is hardly in a position to point a finger at the UN on that charge. The US has often directly funded regimes which murder, torture, and rape their own people. Look at El Salvadore, Pinotchet in Chile, the Shah in Iran, and even Saddam himself back in the good old days. Gassing the Kurds was not a problem to the US as long as he was useful for fighting anti-western regimes.
Heh, just noticed this reply a week too late. Odds are you aren't going to see this, but since you wrote such a long reply to my post, I'm going to go ahead a reply anyway.
Admittedly, the article I linked to was not the best. I found a more pertinent one afterwards, but I don't have the link anymore. You're right that viewers of all tv news had misconceptions, but viewers of fox news had signficantly more misconceptions. Its hard to prove cause and effect with something like this, but its interesting to note that people who said they followed fox news closely were even more misinformed than those who watched it casually.
I don't think that fox news actually lies. I do think they are strongly biased, and it shows in the way they present the facts, who they choose to interview, how much time they devote to a story. Of course I can't prove this; proving something like that would require pouring over videotape with a stopwatch for hours (and would still be subjective).
Final point: you say that fox may be biased to the right, but other networks are biased to the left. I don't agree with this. The other news are biased to the center. They tend to downplay either extreme and try to balance one side with the other (even when such balance is absurd). The fact that people think that what cbs reports is the left's point of view shows how under-reported the views of the left actually are.
It would appear though that the claim that all Climate Scientists agree with the Global Warming ideas is just not so. There are a lot who think otherwise
No one claimed that all climate scientists agree. I said almost all. The fact that you live near some who don't doesn't refute that. However, I will back down from my original statement and go with 'the vast majority'. The main point of my post was that dismissing a theory based on the notion that all its proponents are a bunch of hippies is not a good way to arrive at the truth.
I learned a lot from these people including insights that are pretty deep. If you will remember the "Acid Rain" threat a few years ago that has disappeared from discussion.
Can you site any sources to back up this claim? Acid rain is not some new crackpot theory and it hasn't gone away as you suggest. The term was coined over 100 years ago for the very observable effects surrounding the immediate vicinity of factories. The much higher smoke stacks of modern factories disperse pollutants over a far wider area so its effects are now found far downwind and aren't limited to increasing corrosion of buildings in the vicinity and health problems of workers. I really don't see how a natural process in forests would suddenly raise rain pH and cause unbefore seen damage to forests, lakes and streams.
Anyone who wants to do climate prediction should be instantly suspect as some tree hugging radical whose agenda is to push some bullshit greenpeace agenda.
So anyone who studies climate is inherently untrustworthy? And THATS why almost all climate scientists believe global warming is a threat. What an amazingly effective means you've found for insulating yourself from anything that might challenge your uninformed opinion.
I agree with your main point, but not what you say about Fox news.
Why don't sub you fox news comment with a cbs comment. afterall they are the one making the news up instead of reporting it in a way you don't like.
They did not make up the story about Bush's service records, they were tricked into believing it. Whether they should have detected the fraud or not is a matter of opinion. Much like Bush's similar misstep.
BTW, what has fox news ever reported that was wrong or missleading?
Read this
Its not a bribe. Its only a bribe if it comes from a private citizen. Otherwise its a settlement or a payement. If it gets investigated, it may turn into an illegal payment, but its never a bribe.
Kind of like how if you sell your services as a soldier, you are a mercenary, but if you work for a company that sells your services as a soldier, you are a private military contractor.
Alot of people responded, but I don't think any of the responses hit the nail on the head so here's my attempt. Lets just look at the title. The title watchmen refers to the hero's themselves. Its meant to invoke the famous quote "who watches the watchmen" by Juvenal about controlling those in power - a major theme in the series. It also refers to the technicians and scientists driving the nuclear age with all its dangers as well as potential benefits. Extending this further, it refers to the notion of the universe as a deterministic mechanism and the place of fate and freewill. All this in comic book form with sex, violence and even pirates!
Can we please have a moritorium on stories from Linuxworld? That site feeds on stiring up stupid controversies. They cover 75% of their page with ads because they don't need regular readers - they just print shit about Linux and wait for the slashdot effect. Doesn't anybody remember the AIX source code fiasco?
they are willing to sacrifice innocent civilians to further their political agenda.
As is the US government. Or are you saying no civilians have been killed in Iraq?
Is being beheaded worse than being blown to pieces with a bomb? Is the fate of a man who intentionally went to a war torn country more tragic than the fate of a child who did not choose to be born into a country designated as part of the 'axis of evil'?
I respect that many soldiers went to Iraq for the best of reasons - they want to help the Iraqi people. But that is not the reason why the politicians started this war, and good intentions of US soldiers will not save that country.
Learn to use Google
with the exception of a few anti-war protestors being shot in the 1960s, I think the US can be credited with a bit more social restraint in 'managing' societal activities.
You should study the history of the US labor movement. While the death toll has never reached tiananmin levels, there are numerous instances of troops being used to break up strikes and protests, frequently firing upon and killing the protestors. The Ludlow Massacre is one prominent example. I'm not trying to say that the US has been as bad as China, merely pointing out that the Kent State incident is not alone, and is not the worst examples of this sort of thing.
Hope you find treatment that works. Sorry most everyone on slashdot is more interested in moralizing and critiquing your past choices than actually providing any help. I did see one actual piece of information that might help. In case you missed it:
One of the deservedly most-celebrated ID doctors in the world is Ralph Feigin at Baylor/Texas Children's [texaschild...spital.org].
Anyway good luck and thanks for all the Slack! Wouldn't be a programmer today without it!
They can be removed. The problem is that they can only be replaced by another representive in the pocket of the corporations. Anyone who is not supported by corporations will not be supported by the party machinery and will not be able to get their message across to the people.
Virginity is a pretty important aspect of the concept of maiden (as you can see with words like maidenhead). I'm not saying the translation is right, but the 'correct' definition he gives does not show it to be wrong since it encompasses virginity. If he wants to suggest that it doesn't imply virginity, he might want to choose another term. How about 'chick'? ;)
maiden
:D
Note definition 1.b. A virgin.
So what was your point again?
Hard numbers about military spending is soft data, and your vague notions about things is hard data.
;)
:D
Numbers are not hard data if they are not relevant. Not only did you not site any actual numbers, you didn't provide an argument about how those numbers prove what you think it proves. I might just as well point to those numbers and say it proves that other nations are afraid. Wow, now I have "hard numbers" too!
You're so ignorant about what constitutes data and what "the other's" argument is that you self-righteously accuse me of your own biggest flaws, apparently without irony.
I'm enjoying some irony right now
I prefer to learn from people smarter than me, not more ignorant and less able to think than me.
Fortunately, this leaves you with plenty of options!
I find the list of uninvaded countries, untoppled regimes, and, germane to the topic, un-nuked cities is quite long
:)
Are you saying every country we don't invade is evidence of how peaceful we are? Well the mongols left most of the world alone too, so I guess they were a peaceful people right
You say people aren't acting terrified. You think your vague notion of how people all over the world think and feel constitutes hard data. I say you have no idea how people feel or how they act, and you apparently have no idea what hard data is.
Why aren't they defending themselves? They are. Most are following the policy of sucking up to the US so it doesn't get mad at them. Some, like Iran, who are on the US's shit list are desperately trying to build WMDs so they don't have to worry about the US having more 'faultly intelligence' and deciding to invade them.
You want want to see an actual list of US use of military force? Try this one. Some of this stuff is pretty small, some not really invasions, but its only from 1890 on and leaves out the war with Mexico and almost all of the wars against the Indians. Read the whole list and tell me that people in places like Nicaragua don't have to worry about the American military.
There is evidence that he abused power in some ways
LMAO thats putting it delicately. Political opression, torture, corruption. The Iranian people hated him and rightly resented the US for proping him up. Unfortunately, the only people capable of orgainizing resistance were the fundamentalists which left them in a position to dictate the form of the new government. Kind of like what is going to happen in Iraq, our new 'friend' in the middle east.
While you'd attract some brighter people, you'd attract a whole slew of people that were just after some quick cash.
The same argument can be used regarding every other profession. Lets try it with doctors: if you pay doctors well, you'd attract a bunch of dumb people only interested in it for the money. You might counter that its hard to become a doctor and thats what keeps out the morons - well maybe it should be hard to become a teacher too (and pay them better) Low pay is a terrible way to ensure quality.
The same could be said for building a gigantic robotic Homer Simpson. But here's a thought - we could actually employ people building things that are more generally useful. It doesn't have to be some complex weapons system to lead jobs.
But even though you (and I!) can reel off a list of exceptions as long as your arm, people clearly understand those are exceptions...
I think if you compare the list of times Amercan forces have been used to protect America's interests versus the times they've been used for actual defense, you'll find the 'exceptions' are alot more common than the rule.
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
That is the biggest load of crap I've read today - and I've been reading Slashdot for two hours. Alot of the world needs US protection the way a whore needs the protection of her pimp.
Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II.
Religions don't hate people, people hate people. Muslem people have a far better history of religious tolerence than Christians. However, you will find alot of hatred around that region these days, possibly relating to the way Europeans keep fucking with them. In particular, taking the side of Isreal against the Palestinians, building military bases in their holy land, and supporting cruel military regimes like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein (ok we stopped doing that).
If you have a right to eat, and I have a responsibility to provide your meal for you, I am your slave.
By your reasoning parents are the slaves of their children.