You can rebrand it, but you cannot claim it as your own. You must list the original authors of the code.
You're thinking of the old-style bsd license. The GPL does not require listing the original authors. I just reread the license again, and it seems it does allow taking someone else's gpl'd program and claiming it is entirely your own.
Why is the idea of living for thousands of years ridiculous?
Generally, in history, people have seen two generations of their offspring, and even under those circumstances human population has exploded. If we consider it reasonable that to keep population size at a normal level you can see at most two generations of offspring during your lifetime, then living a thousand years would mean you have to wait almost half a millenium before you have chilren.
The price of living forever is that you can't reproduce.
Remaining lean is a basic necessity of long life. The fatter you are, the sooner you'll die. The only measure that'll increase your life, instead of just the average across a population, is eating less, as in caloric restriction. As you can read in that link, what's most important for a long life is that you are lean.
Think about it, how many fat 100 year olds have you seen?
If we currently don't even cough up enough welfare to help the poor afford basic things like food and heat, what on God's fucking greeen Earth makes you think that we will EVER be giving them ANY version of nanobots?
Because nanotech and fusion power combined will make production of anything dirtcheap. You'll license designs covered by IP rights for your nanofactory, which will build the thing out of basic atoms. There will be free designs, government-made and/or open source. The poor will have access to nearly free production of low-quality goods, and the rich will be able to afford the luxuries of IP-protected designs.
Ofcourse, that presupposes we manage to create viable nanotech and fusion power without destroying humanity in the process, which would be a mean feat indeed.
But it won't matter even if we can create these things dirtcheap. The real problem humanity has with respect to providing basic human rights is that we have no control over our population size. If we provide more food and medicine through technological advances, the global population will just grow to absorb the increase in resources, without actually increasing quality of life. The only way to increase quality of life for all of humanity is by instituting strict birth control policies so we do what nature used to do for us: limit population size so it matches available resources.
Have you heard of something called "the presidents management agenda" that the Bush administration has been touting since it came into office. This president has been seeking to outsource all "non inherently governmental" jobs in the US executive branch for quite some time now.
The amusing thing is that under the bush administration 800.000 public sector jobs have been added, which account for a large part of the jobs Bush claims he has created. In fact, as a percentage under Bush the number of public sector jobs increased by 3.9 percent, whereas under Clinton it only increased by 3.5 percent. So, not only is his "management agenda" irrelevant, it's deceptive, because the administration's actual policies promote big government.
that makes sense, but how do you find someone who exports personal data? and how do you setup a system that tracks the sale of the illegally exported information? it sounds great, just not very enforceable
That's like saying "How do you stop exports of goods and services to embargoed countries? It sounds great, just not very enforceable."
This stuff isn't cloak and dagger. It's most often out in the open. You can't stop what you can't see, but most of it is very visible. After all, this is a business, and they need to advertise they're dodging the law by exporting private data somewhere inside the US to sell their services. At that point it's just a regular domestic intelligence operation, well within the capabilities of the FBI. The goal is increasing the hurdles to be taken to do this to the point where it's just no longer cost-effective.
I know someone who uses a GPRS cellphone to sit on irc all day long, regardless of physical location. And that's affordable and widely available today. I see great potential for knowledge workers to untie themselves from physical location with the crossover between cellphones and high-powered pda's (faster than my main home file server, a 233 mhz pII).
Plus, it would be insanely cool to have a beefy workstation in a rack somewhere, and to just remotely connect into it from the beach through GPRS/UTMS and be able to do your hacking there. After all, the marvel of the shell is that it doesn't really need that much bandwidth. As long as you're not designing graphical apps, you can do a development job on a cellphone/pda today, at reasonable cost. I expect for this to become feasible for graphic development within 5 years as well.
OK, so maybe I'll be wailing when in a few years my employer expects me to do some work even when I'm on holiday in spain, but still, at the moment it looks like something pretty darn cool.
I think the real purpose is to change American lifestyles and force them to take inefficient public transit and use less electricity. Either way, Kyoto is dead in the water. The only countries who agree to it are the ones that can use it as a weapon against competitors. Since the US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of scrapping it, this treaty will never be ratified, with or without Bush's support.
Wow, a lot of myths there, let me just cover the major ones.
Myth #1: public transportation is always inefficient.
Take a look at the public transportation systems of most of europe. There's no reason public transportation needs to be expensive, low-comfort, or have lousy geographic availability.
Myth #2: the american lifestyle must be changed to reduce energy use in america.
In fact, america could cut its energy use in half without a measurable impact on consumer lifestyles, through tried and tested energy reduction policies which have been employed in europe for years (and europe is pretty bad itself when it comes to energy use), but because the US energy industry funds american politicians (democrats and republicans) heavily, nothing ever gets done about it.
Myth #3: kyoto can't be realized without US cooperation
All that is needed is russia ratifying it, and putin recently said he will. So within a year kyoto will become active, if putin keeps his word that is.
Myth #4: kyoto is a tool for the rest of the world to "go after" america.
Kyoto is simply a tool to stop greenhouse gas levels from rising further, because they're already at the highest they've been in a million years, and if they rise much further dramatic climate change is inevitable. The cost of not doing anything far outweighs the cost of preventing it. The last time there was this much carbondioxide in the atmosphere, there were no polar ice caps. The sad thing about kyoto is that it was watered down significantly to be palatable to the US, and still america broke its word and didn't ratify it.
Myth #5: the only countries to join kyoto are those that have petty political reasons
Right now, 126 nations have joined kyoto (and not just signed the treaty). This is the vast majority of the planet, if measured in population (but sadly, without the US and russia, not in pollution).
You assume too much. I used KDE as my main desktop for several years. I still try out every new release, just to see if they've gotten widget complexity down to a level where I want to switch back.
Same here. Every version they say "oh, super usability improvements, dramatically simplified toolbars and menus", and then I install the new version, try it out, and notice that stuff has just been rearranged a bit, but there's still twice as many widgets on screen as there need to be. For me it is the biggest turn-off from KDE.
So if a local university broadcasts a class, I have the right to appear in that telecast? After all, my tax money paid for the venue and they're using my airwaves, right?
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. The argument is that public resources must be used to the benefit of the public. There is no downside to the public in including badnarik and cobb in the debates, while there are many downsides to not including them. Since it is in the public's interest to include them in the debates, they should be included. There is no such interest with the examples you gave.
Also, like I explained in my original post, the legality of the matter is one thing, the morality is another. It's a bad thing to lock out third party candidates from getting coverage and/or participation, in addition to making them run in a voting system that dramatically favors the two major candidates (read up on duverger's law for why this is).
People being complacent about how third party candidates like badnarik and cobb are getting screwed by the voting and media system are the entire reason why america each presidential elections gets to choose between a poor candidate and a worse candidate.
"Webs of trust." People will make pages telling what pages they believe have a good reputation, and generally tells the truth.
That won't work for stuff that's politically sensitive, since people will mod sites down just because they dislike what the site says, even if it is accurate. It also gets really complicated with sites that are accurate on one subject but don't know jack about another.
Computers will have "beliefs" reflecting their owner's own.
In that case, what's the point? If your computer only accepts data that fits in with your predetermined conclusions, it will provide valueless results.
I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?
When was the last time a third party candidate won the elections? When was the last time a third party candidate even got close to getting elected? Face it, the american electoral system makes it impossible for third parties to get elected. What badnarik and cobb are doing is the only thing they can do, draw press attention to the fact the american voting system is inherently bipartisan, and a big fraud upon the voter.
The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't a governmental entity--it's a private corporation. Why doesn't Badnarik, as a "libertarian", respect their property rights?
They may be a private entity, but they're using public property, namely airwaves and university grounds. So, the assertion that they should be free to regulate who takes part in the debates as they please is fallacious. Public resources equals public responsibility.
Also, in the wider picture, though technically the legality might be on the side of the CPD, what is the moral thing here? Is it right that third party candidates can not debate the major candidates in ANY venue? Is it right that badnarik and cobb have to get ARRESTED before someone will hear anything about them from the mainstream media? How many americans even know who badnarik and cobb are? This isn't democracy, it's plutocracy, and it's immoral, if not illegal.
There was a time everyone had netscape, and it came bundled with all isp subscriptions. Then the isp's started bundling IE, and people switched away. If the isp's decide the security headaches from DoS drones and spam bots are too much, they'll start bundling firefox with all their new subscriptions, and push it towards existing clients, and you'll see a big leap in marketshare. Corporate browsing works very much the same way. Where you've also got to take into account people tend to use the same product at home as they do at work, so if corporations start advocating firefox (which I fully expect post-1.0), then you're going to see a wave of home users switching as well.
Nor those fucking freaks over at PETA whose goal is to force the rest of us to live our lives exactly as they command us to
I know a PETA member, so I may not be able to generalize, but I can talk about her. Her philosophy goes a bit like this:
1) hurting animals without a good reason is immoral 2) hurting animals for food is not a good reason, since humans can live well on a vegetarian diet, and if done right it tastes great and is healthier than a meat-based diet. 3) eating animals is therefore immoral
They see it as a morality issue, you don't cause harm without a reason, and any harm caused in the process of producing food is not done for a good reason. Now, if animals were treated well by the food industry this wouldn't be as much of a problem, but if you do the time to learn about how the meat, poultry and dairy industries treat their livestock, you would be appalled. Most animals are treated so poorly that they need to be fed antibiotics in their feed so they won't get sick and die before they're up for the slaughter. And for every chicken that gets the opportunity to get sick due to the poor treatment, there is a young boy chick that gets thrown into a meatgrinder, because they can't make eggs come out all in one gender, and roosters have stringy meat and can't lay eggs, so are basically useless and need to be destroyed. There are videos of that. You see people sorting through cute little yellow chicks, and throwing half of them in a chute that leads directly to a meatgrinder.
Oh, and read up on bovine growth hormone as used for dairy cows, it's the perfect example of what is wrong with the food industry.
xul and xaml are toolkits meant for generic app design, whether it be local or remote. xforms is a ground-up design for remotely-delivered web forms in a way that doesn't require tons of javascript to support weird data types. Whatwg is a modification of regular html forms to support some of the most popular data types that aren't directly supported in the current standards, like a date/time field.
All of them have overlap, all of them are competing for a spot as the chosen delivery platform for web forms.
In the 1940s the Germans turned almost all of the Jews in several countries, and very large percentage of many others, into either ashes, or lampshades. Somehow I doubt that the words of the Mahatma (Ghandi) were on their minds after they escaped from Europe to their ancient homeland only to have to face Arabs who want to complete what the Germans started.
Let me sum up my position on things, instead of boiling it down to a single quote and having people misunderstand my argument:
- the jews have no legitimate claim to the land, since they hadn't been rulers in the region since before the birth of christ, and their whole argument is based on a faith i don't believe in
- israel should still have been handed to them, since it was bloodmoney paid by europe in exchange for the wrongs waged by europe on the jewish people. (yes, all of europe, everyone knew exactly what germany was doing, which is why the post-war guilt was so strong)
- the arabs have no legitimate claim on the land, since it was a british territory
- since no side has a legitimate claim to the land, and the un created the whole mess, it is up to the un to fix it, most likely by arbitrating a set of mutually acceptable borders, and then extremely heavily penalizing a side that does not respect those borders
- as long as violence is used on either side, debate about acceptable borders can't happen, and people will still die pointlessly, on both sides. My gandhi quote meant to point out that the violence is extending the conflict, not solving it.
- Hitler is the perfect example of why violence won't solve this conflict. The allied forces had to conquer back all of germany, and hitler never conceded, but fought to the bitter end and then committed suicide. Violence by itself will only win a war if you achieve absolute victory. The jew-arab conflict can not have absolute victory from either side without a mass genocide. The violence is not helping anyone, not even the jews.
- anyone who supports either side instead of publicly proclaiming both sides are wrong is prolonging the duration of the conflict, since they keep political compromises from happening.
If they do they will start making major advances not just in space migration but in life extension, intelligence increase and fusion energy which will finally embarrass the government into doing what it should have been doing all along
Even with fusion energy, life extension will just increase population pressure. The world's population is already well in excess of what the planet can bear if everyone has access to their basic human rights. With improved medicine, it would be even worse. You can't live forever without stopping birth.
The longer you live, the less kids you can have. Sooner or later we're going to have to make a choice, a decent quality of life, or lots of kids. One or the other, you can't do both. Not even with fusion energy.
America's true authority in the world isn't military, it's moral. If neither our citizens nor our allies trust our government to act wisely, our ability to influence the world is much diminished. We can hardly persuade people to act against truly dangerous rogue nations like North Korea if they think we might be a dangerous rogue nation ourselves.
An official study was done last year in the EU that showed 53 percent of EU citizens consider the US a threat to world peace (page 82 in the pdf), making the US one of the most dangerous nations in the world to global peace in the minds of EU citizens. Incidentally, the percentage of EU citizens who consider north korea a threat to world peace is also 53 percent. And the EU is relatively moderate. It is just unimaginable how much fear there must be in the middle east for the vagaries of US military might. America hasn't acted from a position of moral superiority for a long time. It's fear that keeps the local systems in line. OK, I jest, but americans might want to be aware just how low their public image has sunk around the world.
If the pdf throws up an error, download it to disk first. Firefox choked on displaying it in-page.
Yes. That is normally my first thought too when I run into a Harvard MBA/fighter pilot/Governor/POTUS. LUSER.
He got into Harvard because he's a bush. He got into pilot training because he's a bush. He got the governorship and the presidency because he's a bush. Everything he has gotten in life he owes to his daddy and his name. He has earned nothing on his own abilities.
Look at his real achievements, his grades in school, his test results when he joined the national guard, the financial results from the businesses he ran, the results in the education, health care and economic statistics from his policies. Really, go do that. And then ask yourself: has this man ever earned his position in life? Is he really competent at anything?
If by "rejected" you mean "got killed or deported by whoever was in power then sure you've got a point.
I think by "rejected" the parent means there is not an example of a single society ever having existed that didn't have a form of government or social hierarchy. Even the anarchist communes of the 60's and 70's ended up with a ruling class (and often started out with one). It's an inevitable consequence of human psyche that you have government.
Ofcourse, if you have an example of a no-government model that actually works, please, I'd like to hear it so I can review my opinions.
I think the parent is disturbed by people who equate seeing a naked breast to seeing the goatse guy. I know I am.
And the point is not that a tit was shown at the superbowl without warning, the point is that it's impossible to show a tit with warning, because it's illegal to show that tit, because people like you have imposed their personal morality on everyone else.
I am asking for courtesy, not for the world to adopt my sexual ethics.
Well, why ask for what you already have. If the rest of america hadn't adopted your sexual ethics already, there would be no fine for janet's tit.
The reports that Iraq submitted did not show that they destroyed all the weapons they were known to have. Quite the contrary.
The contrary? Are you claiming there was proof of non-destroyed WMD's? All I heard the inspectors say was that they couldn't prove without a doubt that all the weapons had been destroyed, but that they had no proof that they hadn't been, and that with a few more months they could account for all the weapons.
And then bush pulled them out and sent in the troops.
Let me repeat: there is no proof Saddam didn't comply with the resolutions to disarm. There were no iraqi WMD's. If there were, they would have been found by now.
And that's the thing, the whole international legitimization for invading another country is that your nation is under attack, or is under threat of attack, by that country. The Iraq war could only be legal if there was clear-cut evidence that not only Iraq had WMD's or an active WMD program, but that in addition they intended to deploy these WMD's against the US and had the capability to. There is no undisputable proof for any of these things, and there never was. So the Iraq war is a violation of international treaty, making it illegal, as Kofi Annan already stated.
Slashdot Mirror
You can rebrand it, but you cannot claim it as your own. You must list the original authors of the code.
You're thinking of the old-style bsd license. The GPL does not require listing the original authors. I just reread the license again, and it seems it does allow taking someone else's gpl'd program and claiming it is entirely your own.
Why is the idea of living for thousands of years ridiculous?
Generally, in history, people have seen two generations of their offspring, and even under those circumstances human population has exploded. If we consider it reasonable that to keep population size at a normal level you can see at most two generations of offspring during your lifetime, then living a thousand years would mean you have to wait almost half a millenium before you have chilren.
The price of living forever is that you can't reproduce.
Remaining lean is a basic necessity of long life. The fatter you are, the sooner you'll die. The only measure that'll increase your life, instead of just the average across a population, is eating less, as in caloric restriction. As you can read in that link, what's most important for a long life is that you are lean.
Think about it, how many fat 100 year olds have you seen?
If we currently don't even cough up enough welfare to help the poor afford basic things like food and heat, what on God's fucking greeen Earth makes you think that we will EVER be giving them ANY version of nanobots?
Because nanotech and fusion power combined will make production of anything dirtcheap. You'll license designs covered by IP rights for your nanofactory, which will build the thing out of basic atoms. There will be free designs, government-made and/or open source. The poor will have access to nearly free production of low-quality goods, and the rich will be able to afford the luxuries of IP-protected designs.
Ofcourse, that presupposes we manage to create viable nanotech and fusion power without destroying humanity in the process, which would be a mean feat indeed.
But it won't matter even if we can create these things dirtcheap. The real problem humanity has with respect to providing basic human rights is that we have no control over our population size. If we provide more food and medicine through technological advances, the global population will just grow to absorb the increase in resources, without actually increasing quality of life. The only way to increase quality of life for all of humanity is by instituting strict birth control policies so we do what nature used to do for us: limit population size so it matches available resources.
Have you heard of something called "the presidents management agenda" that the Bush administration has been touting since it came into office. This president has been seeking to outsource all "non inherently governmental" jobs in the US executive branch for quite some time now.
The amusing thing is that under the bush administration 800.000 public sector jobs have been added, which account for a large part of the jobs Bush claims he has created. In fact, as a percentage under Bush the number of public sector jobs increased by 3.9 percent, whereas under Clinton it only increased by 3.5 percent. So, not only is his "management agenda" irrelevant, it's deceptive, because the administration's actual policies promote big government.
that makes sense, but how do you find someone who exports personal data? and how do you setup a system that tracks the sale of the illegally exported information? it sounds great, just not very enforceable
That's like saying "How do you stop exports of goods and services to embargoed countries? It sounds great, just not very enforceable."
This stuff isn't cloak and dagger. It's most often out in the open. You can't stop what you can't see, but most of it is very visible. After all, this is a business, and they need to advertise they're dodging the law by exporting private data somewhere inside the US to sell their services. At that point it's just a regular domestic intelligence operation, well within the capabilities of the FBI. The goal is increasing the hurdles to be taken to do this to the point where it's just no longer cost-effective.
I know someone who uses a GPRS cellphone to sit on irc all day long, regardless of physical location. And that's affordable and widely available today. I see great potential for knowledge workers to untie themselves from physical location with the crossover between cellphones and high-powered pda's (faster than my main home file server, a 233 mhz pII).
Plus, it would be insanely cool to have a beefy workstation in a rack somewhere, and to just remotely connect into it from the beach through GPRS/UTMS and be able to do your hacking there. After all, the marvel of the shell is that it doesn't really need that much bandwidth. As long as you're not designing graphical apps, you can do a development job on a cellphone/pda today, at reasonable cost. I expect for this to become feasible for graphic development within 5 years as well.
OK, so maybe I'll be wailing when in a few years my employer expects me to do some work even when I'm on holiday in spain, but still, at the moment it looks like something pretty darn cool.
I think the real purpose is to change American lifestyles and force them to take inefficient public transit and use less electricity. Either way, Kyoto is dead in the water. The only countries who agree to it are the ones that can use it as a weapon against competitors. Since the US Senate voted 98-0 in favor of scrapping it, this treaty will never be ratified, with or without Bush's support.
Wow, a lot of myths there, let me just cover the major ones.
Myth #1: public transportation is always inefficient.
Take a look at the public transportation systems of most of europe. There's no reason public transportation needs to be expensive, low-comfort, or have lousy geographic availability.
Myth #2: the american lifestyle must be changed to reduce energy use in america.
In fact, america could cut its energy use in half without a measurable impact on consumer lifestyles, through tried and tested energy reduction policies which have been employed in europe for years (and europe is pretty bad itself when it comes to energy use), but because the US energy industry funds american politicians (democrats and republicans) heavily, nothing ever gets done about it.
Myth #3: kyoto can't be realized without US cooperation
All that is needed is russia ratifying it, and putin recently said he will. So within a year kyoto will become active, if putin keeps his word that is.
Myth #4: kyoto is a tool for the rest of the world to "go after" america.
Kyoto is simply a tool to stop greenhouse gas levels from rising further, because they're already at the highest they've been in a million years, and if they rise much further dramatic climate change is inevitable. The cost of not doing anything far outweighs the cost of preventing it. The last time there was this much carbondioxide in the atmosphere, there were no polar ice caps. The sad thing about kyoto is that it was watered down significantly to be palatable to the US, and still america broke its word and didn't ratify it.
Myth #5: the only countries to join kyoto are those that have petty political reasons
Right now, 126 nations have joined kyoto (and not just signed the treaty). This is the vast majority of the planet, if measured in population (but sadly, without the US and russia, not in pollution).
You assume too much. I used KDE as my main desktop for several years. I still try out every new release, just to see if they've gotten widget complexity down to a level where I want to switch back.
Same here. Every version they say "oh, super usability improvements, dramatically simplified toolbars and menus", and then I install the new version, try it out, and notice that stuff has just been rearranged a bit, but there's still twice as many widgets on screen as there need to be. For me it is the biggest turn-off from KDE.
So if a local university broadcasts a class, I have the right to appear in that telecast? After all, my tax money paid for the venue and they're using my airwaves, right?
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. The argument is that public resources must be used to the benefit of the public. There is no downside to the public in including badnarik and cobb in the debates, while there are many downsides to not including them. Since it is in the public's interest to include them in the debates, they should be included. There is no such interest with the examples you gave.
Also, like I explained in my original post, the legality of the matter is one thing, the morality is another. It's a bad thing to lock out third party candidates from getting coverage and/or participation, in addition to making them run in a voting system that dramatically favors the two major candidates (read up on duverger's law for why this is).
People being complacent about how third party candidates like badnarik and cobb are getting screwed by the voting and media system are the entire reason why america each presidential elections gets to choose between a poor candidate and a worse candidate.
"Webs of trust." People will make pages telling what pages they believe have a good reputation, and generally tells the truth.
That won't work for stuff that's politically sensitive, since people will mod sites down just because they dislike what the site says, even if it is accurate. It also gets really complicated with sites that are accurate on one subject but don't know jack about another.
Computers will have "beliefs" reflecting their owner's own.
In that case, what's the point? If your computer only accepts data that fits in with your predetermined conclusions, it will provide valueless results.
I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?
When was the last time a third party candidate won the elections? When was the last time a third party candidate even got close to getting elected? Face it, the american electoral system makes it impossible for third parties to get elected. What badnarik and cobb are doing is the only thing they can do, draw press attention to the fact the american voting system is inherently bipartisan, and a big fraud upon the voter.
The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't a governmental entity--it's a private corporation. Why doesn't Badnarik, as a "libertarian", respect their property rights?
They may be a private entity, but they're using public property, namely airwaves and university grounds. So, the assertion that they should be free to regulate who takes part in the debates as they please is fallacious. Public resources equals public responsibility.
Also, in the wider picture, though technically the legality might be on the side of the CPD, what is the moral thing here? Is it right that third party candidates can not debate the major candidates in ANY venue? Is it right that badnarik and cobb have to get ARRESTED before someone will hear anything about them from the mainstream media? How many americans even know who badnarik and cobb are? This isn't democracy, it's plutocracy, and it's immoral, if not illegal.
There was a time everyone had netscape, and it came bundled with all isp subscriptions. Then the isp's started bundling IE, and people switched away. If the isp's decide the security headaches from DoS drones and spam bots are too much, they'll start bundling firefox with all their new subscriptions, and push it towards existing clients, and you'll see a big leap in marketshare. Corporate browsing works very much the same way. Where you've also got to take into account people tend to use the same product at home as they do at work, so if corporations start advocating firefox (which I fully expect post-1.0), then you're going to see a wave of home users switching as well.
Nor those fucking freaks over at PETA whose goal is to force the rest of us to live our lives exactly as they command us to
I know a PETA member, so I may not be able to generalize, but I can talk about her. Her philosophy goes a bit like this:
1) hurting animals without a good reason is immoral
2) hurting animals for food is not a good reason, since humans can live well on a vegetarian diet, and if done right it tastes great and is healthier than a meat-based diet.
3) eating animals is therefore immoral
They see it as a morality issue, you don't cause harm without a reason, and any harm caused in the process of producing food is not done for a good reason. Now, if animals were treated well by the food industry this wouldn't be as much of a problem, but if you do the time to learn about how the meat, poultry and dairy industries treat their livestock, you would be appalled. Most animals are treated so poorly that they need to be fed antibiotics in their feed so they won't get sick and die before they're up for the slaughter. And for every chicken that gets the opportunity to get sick due to the poor treatment, there is a young boy chick that gets thrown into a meatgrinder, because they can't make eggs come out all in one gender, and roosters have stringy meat and can't lay eggs, so are basically useless and need to be destroyed. There are videos of that. You see people sorting through cute little yellow chicks, and throwing half of them in a chute that leads directly to a meatgrinder.
Oh, and read up on bovine growth hormone as used for dairy cows, it's the perfect example of what is wrong with the food industry.
xul and xaml are toolkits meant for generic app design, whether it be local or remote. xforms is a ground-up design for remotely-delivered web forms in a way that doesn't require tons of javascript to support weird data types. Whatwg is a modification of regular html forms to support some of the most popular data types that aren't directly supported in the current standards, like a date/time field.
All of them have overlap, all of them are competing for a spot as the chosen delivery platform for web forms.
It also competes with the next generation of W3C tech, like xforms.
In the 1940s the Germans turned almost all of the Jews in several countries, and very large percentage of many others, into either ashes, or lampshades. Somehow I doubt that the words of the Mahatma (Ghandi) were on their minds after they escaped from Europe to their ancient homeland only to have to face Arabs who want to complete what the Germans started.
Let me sum up my position on things, instead of boiling it down to a single quote and having people misunderstand my argument:
- the jews have no legitimate claim to the land, since they hadn't been rulers in the region since before the birth of christ, and their whole argument is based on a faith i don't believe in
- israel should still have been handed to them, since it was bloodmoney paid by europe in exchange for the wrongs waged by europe on the jewish people. (yes, all of europe, everyone knew exactly what germany was doing, which is why the post-war guilt was so strong)
- the arabs have no legitimate claim on the land, since it was a british territory
- since no side has a legitimate claim to the land, and the un created the whole mess, it is up to the un to fix it, most likely by arbitrating a set of mutually acceptable borders, and then extremely heavily penalizing a side that does not respect those borders
- as long as violence is used on either side, debate about acceptable borders can't happen, and people will still die pointlessly, on both sides. My gandhi quote meant to point out that the violence is extending the conflict, not solving it.
- Hitler is the perfect example of why violence won't solve this conflict. The allied forces had to conquer back all of germany, and hitler never conceded, but fought to the bitter end and then committed suicide. Violence by itself will only win a war if you achieve absolute victory. The jew-arab conflict can not have absolute victory from either side without a mass genocide. The violence is not helping anyone, not even the jews.
- anyone who supports either side instead of publicly proclaiming both sides are wrong is prolonging the duration of the conflict, since they keep political compromises from happening.
If they do they will start making major advances not just in space migration but in life extension, intelligence increase and fusion energy which will finally embarrass the government into doing what it should have been doing all along
Even with fusion energy, life extension will just increase population pressure. The world's population is already well in excess of what the planet can bear if everyone has access to their basic human rights. With improved medicine, it would be even worse. You can't live forever without stopping birth.
The longer you live, the less kids you can have. Sooner or later we're going to have to make a choice, a decent quality of life, or lots of kids. One or the other, you can't do both. Not even with fusion energy.
America's true authority in the world isn't military, it's moral. If neither our citizens nor our allies trust our government to act wisely, our ability to influence the world is much diminished. We can hardly persuade people to act against truly dangerous rogue nations like North Korea if they think we might be a dangerous rogue nation ourselves.
An official study was done last year in the EU that showed 53 percent of EU citizens consider the US a threat to world peace (page 82 in the pdf), making the US one of the most dangerous nations in the world to global peace in the minds of EU citizens. Incidentally, the percentage of EU citizens who consider north korea a threat to world peace is also 53 percent. And the EU is relatively moderate. It is just unimaginable how much fear there must be in the middle east for the vagaries of US military might. America hasn't acted from a position of moral superiority for a long time. It's fear that keeps the local systems in line. OK, I jest, but americans might want to be aware just how low their public image has sunk around the world.
If the pdf throws up an error, download it to disk first. Firefox choked on displaying it in-page.
You wonder why some Israeli Jews are agressive now? They did unto Arabs as Arabs did unto them.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Yes. That is normally my first thought too when I run into a Harvard MBA/fighter pilot/Governor/POTUS. LUSER.
He got into Harvard because he's a bush. He got into pilot training because he's a bush. He got the governorship and the presidency because he's a bush. Everything he has gotten in life he owes to his daddy and his name. He has earned nothing on his own abilities.
Look at his real achievements, his grades in school, his test results when he joined the national guard, the financial results from the businesses he ran, the results in the education, health care and economic statistics from his policies. Really, go do that. And then ask yourself: has this man ever earned his position in life? Is he really competent at anything?
If by "rejected" you mean "got killed or deported by whoever was in power then sure you've got a point.
I think by "rejected" the parent means there is not an example of a single society ever having existed that didn't have a form of government or social hierarchy. Even the anarchist communes of the 60's and 70's ended up with a ruling class (and often started out with one). It's an inevitable consequence of human psyche that you have government.
Ofcourse, if you have an example of a no-government model that actually works, please, I'd like to hear it so I can review my opinions.
I think the parent is disturbed by people who equate seeing a naked breast to seeing the goatse guy. I know I am.
And the point is not that a tit was shown at the superbowl without warning, the point is that it's impossible to show a tit with warning, because it's illegal to show that tit, because people like you have imposed their personal morality on everyone else.
I am asking for courtesy, not for the world to adopt my sexual ethics.
Well, why ask for what you already have. If the rest of america hadn't adopted your sexual ethics already, there would be no fine for janet's tit.
The reports that Iraq submitted did not show that they destroyed all the weapons they were known to have. Quite the contrary.
The contrary? Are you claiming there was proof of non-destroyed WMD's? All I heard the inspectors say was that they couldn't prove without a doubt that all the weapons had been destroyed, but that they had no proof that they hadn't been, and that with a few more months they could account for all the weapons.
And then bush pulled them out and sent in the troops.
Let me repeat: there is no proof Saddam didn't comply with the resolutions to disarm. There were no iraqi WMD's. If there were, they would have been found by now.
And that's the thing, the whole international legitimization for invading another country is that your nation is under attack, or is under threat of attack, by that country. The Iraq war could only be legal if there was clear-cut evidence that not only Iraq had WMD's or an active WMD program, but that in addition they intended to deploy these WMD's against the US and had the capability to. There is no undisputable proof for any of these things, and there never was. So the Iraq war is a violation of international treaty, making it illegal, as Kofi Annan already stated.