"Oceans lash our coasts. Deserts Burn. The sky provides no shelter. Turmoil of Biblical proportions threatens not just our weather but life itself."
"Oh, so mother nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys." -Monty Burns
Seriously, you missed a perfectly good Simpsons quote? What kind of Slashdotter are you?
The problem is that the company working for Pfizer is doing so with total blatant disregard for the ecosystem & probably its workers.
I'm the last person to make apologies for some company, but I'd like to think they're probably smart enough to not kill the golden goose. If they're making billions of dollars from reef extracts, it wouldn't do them any good to destroy the reef and lose that potential source of profits.
Of course, I could be wrong.. they could decide that they'll destroy the reef at a rate that will take 100 years (or 50, or 10) and decide that's a good window of time to make a huge profit, and by the time the reef is destroyed, they will have perfected an in-vitro method of production or been able to move onto the next wonder drug, or whatever.
Your memory is short. From 1993 to 1995, Democrats were the majority party in the House and Senate, and held the presidency. The Supreme Court was roughly balanced.
Wow, the Democrats had all that power, and they somehow managed to not flush the country down the toilet?
Today's Republicans could learn a lesson from that.
You can hold a nation collectively responsible for its leaders, but not its citizens.
What is a nation if not its citizens?
You can say "America is responsible for Bush" or "the American people are responsible..." since enough voted for him to put him into office, but you can't point at any specific citizen and put the responsibility on them. That's the difference.
If the designer came out and said "I just thought it would be cool to shoot a bunch of kids at school" or "I just wanted to be famous and here's an easy way to do it" I'd respect that more than claiming it's only to promote dialogue. That's horseshit, and if that's what he claims, then he's got no sack.
Perhaps the ABC could now go back through that page and post the IP address that every comment was made from next to each comment. Surely no-one would have a problem with that. Losing a little privacy/anonimity is a small price to pay in the War on Terror right?
Why stop there? I'm sure their ISPs would be happy to turn over the information if asked. Tell them it's for national security and they'll roll right over. You could publish their IP addresses with their names, home addresses, phone numbers, etc.
The strikes in afghanistan were called off because some of the royal family of the UAE were there hunting with him, unless I'm getting my airstrikes mixed up.
Would that be the same UAE that's our strong ally against terror? Maybe they shouldn't be hanging out with public enemy #1.
I've searched all over the net for the quote in your sig, but I can't find it anywhere. Could you please site your source? I'm interested in learning more about this out-of-control president whom I respected for so long.
It's from the TV show "The State." The skit was an unauthorized biography of Abraham Lincoln called "Honest Abe."
The full quote is "America? I don't care about America. All I care about is sex! and pills! and booze! Damn this country, and everything in it! Now get out of my way, I've got slaves to whip."
Prosecutors, at least in my neck of the woods, don't give two shits about justice or truth. They just want convictions.
Well, that's their fucking job! They represent the accusation, after all.
well, no. Their job is to convict the guilty, not to convict whoever is put in front of them. If they find evidence that casts doubt on the guilt of the accused, they have to share it with the defense.
This comment suggests that the method of reporting security "bugs" and the personality or temperament of the reporter are more important than the report itself. Do you mean personality traits like "kind of paranoid"? Do you expect idealistic, highly trusting people to be the ones reporting potential security holes?
There's a difference between someone trying to sell you insurance, and a couple of guys who show up at your business and tell you it would be a real shame if someone should break your legs or burn the place down, and for a few hundred a week they could help make sure nothing of the sort happens.
If your method of reporting security bugs and your personality suggest that you're making a threat, rather than a legitimate report, then people are going to react to it as a threat, even if you had the best intentions.
First off, I'll say I do not condone torture in any way. but...
the scenerios you present ignore the "justification" that torture supporters use- 2a3. Terrorist has information about next terrorist plot- terrorist is tortured and tells all, terror attack is thwarted, thousands of lives saved. (again, to clarify I don't support this point of view, but that's the pro-torture argument.)
of course this also comes with the scenerio: terrorist/innocent civilian is tortured, makes up a story to stop the pain, fake leads are followed up on, wasting valuable anti-terror resources while actual terrorists blow up stuff, thousands die.
If they weren't terrorists before, maybe they will be now that they have a bone to pick with the US. Being imprisoned and tortured for a few years might leave you with a bit of a grudge.
Unitary Executive means that all executive functions are performed within the executive branch and are subject to the Executive Branch's chain of command.
I get it. What I don't get it why the fox-watching-the-henhouse is a good idea.
What happens when the executive branch chain of command fails to exercise proper oversight over failures within the executive branch? Where's the checks-and-balances, where the other branches of government keep each other in line?
the obvious answer is that land represented a huge unexploited ecological niche, with tons of food and no predators
How did they know they were there then? That's almost as obvious as God told them to.
They didn't need to "know" anything. Any organisms that somehow ended up on land and survived were able to exploit the resources of dry land and reproduce.
America's ONLY potential saving grace is that her citizens are armed to the teeth. Not to defend from outward aggression, but to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies who wish to destroy its principles.
Unfortunately, the most hardcore gun-nuts are Bush supporters.
And yeah, Castro sure does put on a good PR show doesn't he? Organized crowds of "supporters"....pre-written "man-on-the-street" interviews....oh, and I especially like the wall he's having built to stop his people from looking at the horrible messages being propagated by the American embassy. What a wonderful dictator Castro is! EVERY country should have one just like him!
Good news! if you're an American, you do have one just like him! Loyalty oaths & hand-selected audiences to ensure crowds of "supporters", propaganda disguised as news, spying on US citizens without warrants, various forms of censorship, torture, etc.
We've only lost around 2,000 men and women in Iraq so far and although it is a trajedy (not the war, but the loss) it is far less than wars of the same scale in years prior. Technology makes the difference.
Even if we don't include the Iraqi dead/wounded (as others have pointed out,) don't forget that tens of thousands of US soliders have been severely injured by wounds that would have killed them in previous conflicts... but thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, they are "only" missing limbs, permanently brain-damaged, etc.
many pro-war supporters like to trot out the "only 2000 killed" line, while not being quite so forthcoming with the severely-injured count.
You do realize that the Geneva Convention is a treaty that only applies to the treatment of soldiers of signatories to the treaty, don't you?
Wrong.
The signatories of the treaty agree to follow the rules regarding the treatment of the prisoners they take, their actions during wartime, etc. A country that signs the treaty has to treat the prisoners of war that it captures according to the rules specified in the treaty, regardless of where those prisoners come from. That's why it's so important that the prisoners of war...excuse me, "enemy combatants" aren't officially recognized as prisoners of war... otherwise we'd have to treat them according to the rules of the treaty the US signed.
Pretty please spare everyone the bullshit until you know what the hell you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
"Oceans lash our coasts. Deserts Burn. The sky provides no shelter. Turmoil of Biblical proportions threatens not just our weather but life itself."
"Oh, so mother nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys." -Monty Burns
Seriously, you missed a perfectly good Simpsons quote?
What kind of Slashdotter are you?
The problem is that the company working for Pfizer is doing so with total blatant disregard for the ecosystem & probably its workers.
I'm the last person to make apologies for some company, but I'd like to think they're probably smart enough to not kill the golden goose. If they're making billions of dollars from reef extracts, it wouldn't do them any good to destroy the reef and lose that potential source of profits.
Of course, I could be wrong.. they could decide that they'll destroy the reef at a rate that will take 100 years (or 50, or 10) and decide that's a good window of time to make a huge profit, and by the time the reef is destroyed, they will have perfected an in-vitro method of production or been able to move onto the next wonder drug, or whatever.
Your memory is short. From 1993 to 1995, Democrats were the majority party in the House and Senate, and held the presidency. The Supreme Court was roughly balanced.
Wow, the Democrats had all that power, and they somehow managed to not flush the country down the toilet?
Today's Republicans could learn a lesson from that.
You can hold a nation collectively responsible for its leaders, but not its citizens.
What is a nation if not its citizens?
You can say "America is responsible for Bush" or "the American people are responsible..." since enough voted for him to put him into office,
but you can't point at any specific citizen and put the responsibility on them.
That's the difference.
The ship divides by two. Where's the div/0 error? The plane is the numerator no? Seriously, I just don't get it?
A type of plane the Japanese used in WWII was the Zero.
If the designer came out and said "I just thought it would be cool to shoot a bunch of kids at school" or "I just wanted to be famous and here's an easy way to do it" I'd respect that more than claiming it's only to promote dialogue.
That's horseshit, and if that's what he claims, then he's got no sack.
Perhaps the ABC could now go back through that page and post the IP address that every comment was made from next to each comment. Surely no-one would have a problem with that. Losing a little privacy/anonimity is a small price to pay in the War on Terror right?
Why stop there? I'm sure their ISPs would be happy to turn over the information if asked. Tell them it's for national security and they'll roll right over. You could publish their IP addresses with their names, home addresses, phone numbers, etc.
The strikes in afghanistan were called off because some of the royal family of the UAE were there hunting with him, unless I'm getting my airstrikes mixed up.
Would that be the same UAE that's our strong ally against terror?
Maybe they shouldn't be hanging out with public enemy #1.
I've searched all over the net for the quote in your sig, but I can't find it anywhere. Could you please site your source? I'm interested in learning more about this out-of-control president whom I respected for so long.
It's from the TV show "The State."
The skit was an unauthorized biography of Abraham Lincoln called "Honest Abe."
The full quote is "America? I don't care about America. All I care about is sex! and pills! and booze! Damn this country, and everything in it! Now get out of my way, I've got slaves to whip."
Prosecutors, at least in my neck of the woods, don't give two shits about justice or truth. They just want convictions.
Well, that's their fucking job! They represent the accusation, after all.
well, no. Their job is to convict the guilty, not to convict whoever is put in front of them.
If they find evidence that casts doubt on the guilt of the accused, they have to share it with the defense.
This comment suggests that the method of reporting security "bugs" and the personality or temperament of the reporter are more important than the report itself. Do you mean personality traits like "kind of paranoid"? Do you expect idealistic, highly trusting people to be the ones reporting potential security holes?
There's a difference between someone trying to sell you insurance, and a couple of guys who show up at your business and tell you it would be a real shame if someone should break your legs or burn the place down, and for a few hundred a week they could help make sure nothing of the sort happens.
If your method of reporting security bugs and your personality suggest that you're making a threat, rather than a legitimate report, then people are going to react to it as a threat, even if you had the best intentions.
Basically, you have several different scenarios:
First off, I'll say I do not condone torture in any way.
but...
the scenerios you present ignore the "justification" that torture supporters use-
2a3. Terrorist has information about next terrorist plot- terrorist is tortured and tells all, terror attack is thwarted, thousands of lives saved.
(again, to clarify I don't support this point of view, but that's the pro-torture argument.)
of course this also comes with the scenerio:
terrorist/innocent civilian is tortured, makes up a story to stop the pain, fake leads are followed up on, wasting valuable anti-terror resources while actual terrorists blow up stuff, thousands die.
Is the US releasing terrorists into afghanistan?
If they weren't terrorists before, maybe they will be now that they have a bone to pick with the US. Being imprisoned and tortured for a few years might leave you with a bit of a grudge.
Walmart happens to not want to cooperate with unions because they think they can offer their employees a better deal directly.
Ho ho, that is rich! Go on, tell us another one.
Unitary Executive means that all executive functions are performed within the executive branch and are subject to the Executive Branch's chain of command.
I get it.
What I don't get it why the fox-watching-the-henhouse is a good idea.
What happens when the executive branch chain of command fails to exercise proper oversight over failures within the executive branch? Where's the checks-and-balances, where the other branches of government keep each other in line?
A proper investigation into the September 11th attacks would have been a nice start.
Too late for that now, I guess.
the obvious answer is that land represented a huge unexploited ecological niche, with tons of food and no predators
How did they know they were there then? That's almost as obvious as God told them to.
They didn't need to "know" anything.
Any organisms that somehow ended up on land and survived were able to exploit the resources of dry land and reproduce.
America's ONLY potential saving grace is that her citizens are armed to the teeth. Not to defend from outward aggression, but to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies who wish to destroy its principles.
Unfortunately, the most hardcore gun-nuts are Bush supporters.
And yeah, Castro sure does put on a good PR show doesn't he? Organized crowds of "supporters"....pre-written "man-on-the-street" interviews....oh, and I especially like the wall he's having built to stop his people from looking at the horrible messages being propagated by the American embassy. What a wonderful dictator Castro is! EVERY country should have one just like him!
Good news! if you're an American, you do have one just like him!
Loyalty oaths & hand-selected audiences to ensure crowds of "supporters", propaganda disguised as news, spying on US citizens without warrants, various forms of censorship, torture, etc.
Enjoy!
We've only lost around 2,000 men and women in Iraq so far and although it is a trajedy (not the war, but the loss) it is far less than wars of the same scale in years prior. Technology makes the difference.
Even if we don't include the Iraqi dead/wounded (as others have pointed out,)
don't forget that tens of thousands of US soliders have been severely injured by wounds that would have killed them in previous conflicts... but thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, they are "only" missing limbs, permanently brain-damaged, etc.
many pro-war supporters like to trot out the "only 2000 killed" line, while not being quite so forthcoming with the severely-injured count.
Maybe Bush really wants to wipe out all those annoying voters who are messing up his approval ratings....
No need to kill them... just send them to prison camps.
You do realize that the Geneva Convention is a treaty that only applies to the treatment of soldiers of signatories to the treaty, don't you?
Wrong.
The signatories of the treaty agree to follow the rules regarding the treatment of the prisoners they take, their actions during wartime, etc.
A country that signs the treaty has to treat the prisoners of war that it captures according to the rules specified in the treaty, regardless of where those prisoners come from. That's why it's so important that the prisoners of war...excuse me, "enemy combatants" aren't officially recognized as prisoners of war... otherwise we'd have to treat them according to the rules of the treaty the US signed.
Pretty please spare everyone the bullshit until you know what the hell you're talking about.
If I don't want a free market, I still get to accept the consequences.
The majority seem to want to. In other words, if you want a democracy, you have to accept the consequences.
I think the majority want jobs that pay the traditionally high American wages, and cheap consumer goods.
Maybe the two are mutually exclusive, and maybe not. If they are, it will be a tough lesson to learn the hard way.
All donations should be required to be anonymous
I disagree. We should just carry the current system to it's logical conclusion without wasting any more time:
All donations should come with a patch that is sewn onto the politician's clothing, so they look like NASCAR drivers, and we know who gave them money.
And legislation should be clearly labeled with corporate sponsers, like advertising.
If I don't want a free market, I still get to accept the consequences.