I hear that a lot about the Wii. But consoles are fun if they have a good variety of fun games. I have never in my life played a game by Epic that was not fun. I have spent more time playing ZZT than any other game I can think about and nothing by epic in the fifteen years since has ever lowered my opinions of them. I'm not saying Nintendo isn't as good as Epic, Mario 3 and 64 drained much of my life as did the donkey kong country games and goldeneye by its subsidiary Rare. But Nintendo is just one developer. The thing about people like Epic (as well as any other developer) is that they have certain demands in a console. If those demands are met, they will release games for it, if not, they won't. Beefy console specs are not for the user, they are for the developer, to allow the developer to achieve what they want in the title. If the developer is happy, they will bring out lots of good games and the player will be happy. The Wii has essentially one developer, the PS3 and XBox360 both have scores of them because they keep the developers happy with power to spare. That is why the Gamecube wasn't the most fun game platform of last generation and is why that the Wii is unlikely to be the the most fun of this one. You'll get sick of the tired old Nintendo franchises soon enough and want something that you havn't played before on the Gamecube and the N64 before that with fairly subtle changes (Smash Bros. anyone?). Don't cry to the messiah for salvation either, Miyamoto is like a small blob of butter spread onto an entire loaf, and fifty four years old to boot.
The Wii will have some good, fun games, but can never have unless they get some developers on board, nomatter what Nintendo claims they are focusing on.
English is a language used by a billion people and in every country on earth. It is also the native language of over 350 million people. If some people in a region of the United States decide to put a redundant syllable in front of "regardless" then it becomes part of their dialect. However it still has no status whatsoever in the larger English lexicon and should not be used in situations where using one's regional dialect is inappropriate such as in publishing or on the Internet. English is not the same language the world over but we manage to communicate quite well with a more universal variant. I'm Australian, I write a slightly different version of English on the Internet so non-Australians can understand me. This is because I want to communicate with everyone, not just Australians. I don't see why any individual shouldn't be able to expect the same thing from everyone else.
I think communism did a lot for Russia. Russia went from being one of the worst educated countries to one of the best in a matter of decades for one. Its nationalistic principles helped the Soviet Union in WWII as well (they still lost millions of people, but then again Russians were always bad in battle). Communism turned Russia from a backwards agrarian economy to an industrialized world power. Communism's worst flaw was concentrating power tight enough to let Comrade Stalin run the country into the ground by trying to run economics through ideology and Comrade Brezhnev run the country into the ground by flat out refusing to do anything to adapt to a changing world. Communist countries suffers from the same problems that liberal democracies do, they are inevitably run by sleezebag politicians that can get peoples trust but couldn't run a McDonalds franchise, let alone a state. It's just in Communist countries industry is centralised so this sleezebag can control a hell of a lot more.
Ok, your Laptop is not a television and indicates nothing about trends in people switching their lounge room sets. and digital isn't the same as HD and works very well with a SD set (in fact most Digital TV stations don't broadcast in HD anyway).
The first and second world are the capitalist United States & friends and the Communist Eastern bloc (in no particular order). Both those have plenty of industry. Why is it that people think they can just say that second is somewhere between first and third no matter what the case is? It's like those moron Nintendo speculators talking about second party developers to mean a company with ties to Nintendo.
It doesn't mean that they did it, but it doesn't mean that they didn't do it either. They probably didn't do it, but in the absence of any evidence whatsoever it seems as good as any other hypothesis.
He can't and doesn't need to cite a source. If the CIA did do something, then one of the results would be that nobody would have evidence that they did it. If the CIA didn't do something, then one of the results would be that nobody would have evidence that they did it. Both results are the same, what assumptions can you make? Chavez believes that the US is out to get him because of slim evidence relating to a US aircraft involved in his inprisonment and possibly something he's gleaned from his own inteligence network. We know that someone's obviously trying to get rid of Chavez and the US does have motive, oportunity and one hell of a record in the area, it's as likely to be them as anyone else. Asking for more evidence than that is like bashing the next Christian/Jew/Whatever that posts on/. because they can't prove that God was really up on mount Sinai and Moses wasn't just playing an immature prank. The CIA and God, if they exist clearly don't want us to know too much about what they are up to, so you just gotta speculate. Someone's got to be right I guess, nobody but the CIA knows who though.
Teens don't have much income compared to adults, that is true. But teens have the free time and inclination to go see a movie and more than enough money to do it. Adults are usually too busy, lazy or cynical to drag themselves to the theater which is why you see more teens there.
I don't think liking or not liking Microsoft has anything to do with this. I think not trusting Microsoft is the issue here. Microsoft has never been totally forthright in its relationships with other buisinesses, whether they are good at movie stuff is irrelivant in partnering with them.
In the context, they do have the majority of the world population. The world total land area comes to about 150Mkm^2. China (9.3Mkm^2) and India (2.9Mkm^2) have a combined area of 12.2Mkm^2, or 8% of the world land area. While the world total population comes to about 6B, China (1.2B) and India (1B) have a combined population of 2.2B, or 37% of the world population.
I don't know what the hell you just said, but you didn't just prove that 2.2G > 6.3G / 2 nomatter what context you are thinking about. Dense doesn't mean numerous, otherwise you could say that the bulk of the world's population lived in Kowloon Walled City before it was demolished, because that had 1,900,000 / km^2 although only having 50,000 people.
There is no context you can possibly put the world into that makes China + India more than half of the world's population and if the Chinese government gets its way, you never will. Sure, Asia might hold a little more than half of the world's population, but Asia is a hell of a lot more than India and China
I provided a link to the PEPCON disaster in my post. It leveled an industrial area near Las Vegas in the late 80s. Now this is a rareish chemical of course so you wouldn't expect it to kill as many people as more common agents like petrol, in fact it was only able to kill 2 people because the rest were evacuated outside its 2.4km wide blast radius before the fire actually got to the Ammonium Perchlorate. Be that as it may, there are very few chemicals that actually could do as much damage as it did. This is absolutely dangerous stuff!
Everyone here seems to think that this chemical is some benign little teddy bear that the poor hobbiests shouldn't be robbed of. It is NOT benign, it is a powerful oxidiser, how else could it fuel rockets? If a fire were to reach a box of this stuff, it will pass its energy hump and start a self sustaining exothermic reaction that not only evolves enough gas fast enough to explode but gives off enough heat and oxygen to make any secondary fuels (even aluminium or plastic) combust, this can level buildings. That is what it does, that's what its for, that's how it works.
Handling dangerous chemicals in an industrial setting is neccisary, handing chemicals like this in your shed close to people and property is completely different. It doesn't matter how careful you are, a single house fire will set this stuff off and your left with a situation that is dangerous to yourself, your neighbours and firefighting personel. Someone's freedom to do this hobby inside a city is not worth the risk to the public. People get careless, people make mistakes, people even get tired and the neighbours should not pay for it.
We all have the right to get a midsize block outside town (this is Texas we're talking about it) and a law abiding citizen should be able to satisfy a background check. If someone can't do both of those, I'd frankly rather they didn't have this chemical. It's for the good of those people who never asked to be put in the hands of the hobbyist.
Yep, just because something is rare, expensive and slightly less dangerous than RDX/Nitroglycerin/PETN means that nobody would EVER fuck up when handling it. I'm sure that someone at PEPCON probably thought it might be funny to start a fire, or didn't quite realise how rare/expensive it was or was from a racial minority or something. The fact is that like any powerful oxidiser it will cause any burning fuel it comes into contact with to explode. Housefires happen, even if you don't want them to and this shit will turn a housefire into a detonation. If deliberately mixed with another fuel however this stuff could easily be used to blow whatever you want to hell many times over. Petrol is nothing compared to the danger of this stuff, petrol vaporises slowly and needs to have a precise ratio of air to do anything and even then the explosion is feeble. This stuff burns extremely hot and actually gives off more oxygen when it does so along with poisonous chlorine gas. It is very nasty stuff.
Ammonium Perchlorate is one of the most dangerous chemicals I can think of, not only is it an incredibly powerful explosive, but it is extremely toxic too, giving out large amounts of chlorine gas if allowed to decompose. Imagine if this stuff got into the hands of some drunken, bored rednecks looking for some fun, or some teenager who wants to impress his friends or a normally good natured hobbyist who's emotionally unstable because of a messy custody dispute. The repercussions could be enormous.
This chemical MUST NOT be allowed into urban or sub-urban areas for any reason. Nomatter what someone's hobbys might be, he has no right to fill his garage with this stuff at the risk of the lives of people in the explosive radius. This stuff can and HAS levelled entire blocks, it is not safe, if you want to play with it: buy some open land like the government does, if you cannot: then perhaps find a new hobby.
The slashdot libertarian slant is normally all well and good, but when someone is chastised for advocating keeping this dangerous industrial oxidizer away from family homes it has become clear that much of slashdot has lost touch with the needs of the community in favour of supporting their own ability to live like mad scientists whenever they feel like it.
Ah ha! You have a BMI of 21 but are a complete and utter moron! His point is that he DOES weigh a heck of a lot for his height, he's a short guy but weighs as much as a big guy should weigh. But he also is not fat, 84 cm is a tiny circumference for an 86kg dude and unless he's got a gut the size of a bathtub above his pants he must just be dense for some reason. Even without fat, people just have different shapes and densities, some people float in water whereas some people sink. This dude however would sink in the dead sea. The point is, someone is fat when they have a lot of fat in their body, not when a ratio is over a threshold.
Wow, you started with a firm, confident, unyeilding "No", cited a technical "defition"(sic.) and even highlighted a conjunction in bold for my benifit but completely missed the point. Find out what the word proper means in the context of set theory and then reflect on the stupidity of your comment.
You have posted at least 24 times over the last 4 days, just slow down a little bit, you're just annoying people here.
If you're dealing with large files a lot, they put ext3fs AND reiserfs to shame. The only place I'd use ext3 anymore is on my system disk, but my large video stores run JFS.
Yes, JFS and XFS suit you better than Reiser4, but not everyone USES big files, everyone uses small ones though. [XJ]FS suits big files better, Reiser4 supports little ones better, it doesn't mean that one is better than the other.
If pornography was a superset of free speech, strict or otherwise then all free speech would be porn. What you mean is that porn is not a subset of free speech. But I think in Ireland which is fairly conservative IIRC, it might actually be a disjoint set to free speech.
1520 was before the first switch date, thus everyone was using the Julian Calender therefore if Jan 13, 1520 happened on a Friday somewhere, it happened on a friday EVERYWHERE.
I know for sure that I've never been put into a situation that would set most passion killers off, I've never been repeatedly abused or had an adulterous spouse or anything. So I'm unwilling to yell "fry 'em" at everyone who kills someone when they get mad and go nuts because I'm not 100% sure I wouldn't. Of course I don't think I would, but neither do most people who do such things. If you can honestly claim that you would never kill someone for any reason you just don't understand what fear, anger and emotional rationalization can do to the nicest people.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
You have some strange anarchist mindset where if we just allow everything we don't like then we won't accidently damage anything in the crossfire. As things stand now, the friendly fire in both spam and drugs may well be worse than the problem itself, but the problem itself would be so much greater if it wasn't so damn dangerous to contribute to it. Take drugs for example, why is it that cigarettes and alcohol cause tens of times more death than all illegal drugs combined? Is it because they are less dangerous? No, Marajuana has more tar and carcinegens than tobacco, heroin can kill you in a single dose if it is too high, certain stimulants make you more violent and self destructive than alcohol. Its because anyone can get cigarettes and alchohol, there is more of it around because they are both rightly or wrongly legal. They are common, so they are more of a danger than uncommon things. Well, its the same with spam, if there wasn't over zealous methods to stop it, riddled with false positives then spamming would be easier, people wouldn't need to maintain botnets, people would be able to make their spam readable without saying v14gra or something. The problem would be even greater than it is today. You have to make some sacrifices in life, this is one of them.
The definition you provided is absolutely correct. A nationalist is a person devoted to nationalism. Nationalism is belief in the importance of the welfare of one's own nation. A nation is a social contruct based on culture and identity. Thus a nationalist promotes the welfare of those with the same culture and identity as them. Thus a nationalist does not promote the welfare of those who do not. You can't just quote a dictionary entry and if it doesn't mention a charactaristic then that charactaristic does not pertain to a group, you gotta reason a little first.
And I don't mean racism, Racisim is an irrational belief that races have different worths. Most of the time race doesn't come into it, like when Americans don't like Mexicans in their country. Mexicans and Americans arn't that racially dissimilar, just a lot of people don't like having more poor people in their country and so many people who don't speak English or see the world the same way as they do. They care about their nation's wealth (not wanting more poor people) and they care about the nation's harmony (wanting all people to have the same language and outlook) not about the genes of people, some probably even care about the Mexican nation's dignity too. But they get called racist, because racism has got a bad reputation.
You can legitimately "un-tolerate" it by speaking out against it, by pointing out the rascists, homophobes, et cetera, are idiots.
"Rascists", "homophobes", "idiots", why is it that the bulk of ad hominem arguments comes from "the nice people"?. In most cases, what your dealing with is a "Nationalist" (someone who distrusts certain nationalites because of cultural characteristics) or someone who contempt the homosexual lifestyle, rather than fearing homosexuals and someone who's parranoid rather than stupid. Sure, you sometimes get people who think that certain races are inferior and people who actually fear homosexuals but they are far rarer, it just sounds worse to call everyone that.
A mistake virtually all popular pundits make is in viewing the decision to go to war as an ideological one. I don't want war, but if I see the violence as inevitable we should go at it to win it decisively.
Pfft, considering that in the context of Iraq would make milk come out of my nose if I was drinking it. Violence was never inevitable, there was no impending danger, there was no sudden crisis, Bush had a score to settle with a country he personally didn't like and used all his powers of rationalization to justify it. First it was terrorism, then it was WMDs, then it was liberation and if he were to get up and claim he did it for oil, that would be bullshit too. Bush invaded Iraq because deep down he felt like Iraq should be invaded, because they were a country run by bad people that needed to be punished or something. If we went in to do a half arse job like the last couple of times the war would be over, instead we went at it to win decisively and deposed the only man crazy enough to run a shithole like that, not to mention the least observant muslim in the middle east. Getting rid of Saddam was the third worst thing that has happened it Iraq's history, the worst was of course Saddam taking charge and the second worst was when Nebuchadnezzar III got drunk and thought he could take on Xerxes, but that's a while back.
Anyway, the point is only ideology could make someone do something as stupid as invading Iraq. And also, I beleive that one of the most important parts of supporting someone is reminding them when they are in the process of screwing up a country and millions of people's lives, so support our troops.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear that a lot about the Wii. But consoles are fun if they have a good variety of fun games. I have never in my life played a game by Epic that was not fun. I have spent more time playing ZZT than any other game I can think about and nothing by epic in the fifteen years since has ever lowered my opinions of them. I'm not saying Nintendo isn't as good as Epic, Mario 3 and 64 drained much of my life as did the donkey kong country games and goldeneye by its subsidiary Rare. But Nintendo is just one developer. The thing about people like Epic (as well as any other developer) is that they have certain demands in a console. If those demands are met, they will release games for it, if not, they won't. Beefy console specs are not for the user, they are for the developer, to allow the developer to achieve what they want in the title. If the developer is happy, they will bring out lots of good games and the player will be happy. The Wii has essentially one developer, the PS3 and XBox360 both have scores of them because they keep the developers happy with power to spare. That is why the Gamecube wasn't the most fun game platform of last generation and is why that the Wii is unlikely to be the the most fun of this one. You'll get sick of the tired old Nintendo franchises soon enough and want something that you havn't played before on the Gamecube and the N64 before that with fairly subtle changes (Smash Bros. anyone?). Don't cry to the messiah for salvation either, Miyamoto is like a small blob of butter spread onto an entire loaf, and fifty four years old to boot.
The Wii will have some good, fun games, but can never have unless they get some developers on board, nomatter what Nintendo claims they are focusing on.
English is a language used by a billion people and in every country on earth. It is also the native language of over 350 million people. If some people in a region of the United States decide to put a redundant syllable in front of "regardless" then it becomes part of their dialect. However it still has no status whatsoever in the larger English lexicon and should not be used in situations where using one's regional dialect is inappropriate such as in publishing or on the Internet. English is not the same language the world over but we manage to communicate quite well with a more universal variant. I'm Australian, I write a slightly different version of English on the Internet so non-Australians can understand me. This is because I want to communicate with everyone, not just Australians. I don't see why any individual shouldn't be able to expect the same thing from everyone else.
I think communism did a lot for Russia. Russia went from being one of the worst educated countries to one of the best in a matter of decades for one. Its nationalistic principles helped the Soviet Union in WWII as well (they still lost millions of people, but then again Russians were always bad in battle). Communism turned Russia from a backwards agrarian economy to an industrialized world power. Communism's worst flaw was concentrating power tight enough to let Comrade Stalin run the country into the ground by trying to run economics through ideology and Comrade Brezhnev run the country into the ground by flat out refusing to do anything to adapt to a changing world. Communist countries suffers from the same problems that liberal democracies do, they are inevitably run by sleezebag politicians that can get peoples trust but couldn't run a McDonalds franchise, let alone a state. It's just in Communist countries industry is centralised so this sleezebag can control a hell of a lot more.
Ok, your Laptop is not a television and indicates nothing about trends in people switching their lounge room sets. and digital isn't the same as HD and works very well with a SD set (in fact most Digital TV stations don't broadcast in HD anyway).
The first and second world are the capitalist United States & friends and the Communist Eastern bloc (in no particular order). Both those have plenty of industry. Why is it that people think they can just say that second is somewhere between first and third no matter what the case is? It's like those moron Nintendo speculators talking about second party developers to mean a company with ties to Nintendo.
Ah, Augustus, the emporor that died in 14AD when Jesus was 16 or so. I think you might be thinking about Tiberius right there.
It doesn't mean that they did it, but it doesn't mean that they didn't do it either. They probably didn't do it, but in the absence of any evidence whatsoever it seems as good as any other hypothesis.
He can't and doesn't need to cite a source. If the CIA did do something, then one of the results would be that nobody would have evidence that they did it. If the CIA didn't do something, then one of the results would be that nobody would have evidence that they did it. Both results are the same, what assumptions can you make? Chavez believes that the US is out to get him because of slim evidence relating to a US aircraft involved in his inprisonment and possibly something he's gleaned from his own inteligence network. We know that someone's obviously trying to get rid of Chavez and the US does have motive, oportunity and one hell of a record in the area, it's as likely to be them as anyone else. Asking for more evidence than that is like bashing the next Christian/Jew/Whatever that posts on /. because they can't prove that God was really up on mount Sinai and Moses wasn't just playing an immature prank. The CIA and God, if they exist clearly don't want us to know too much about what they are up to, so you just gotta speculate. Someone's got to be right I guess, nobody but the CIA knows who though.
Teens don't have much income compared to adults, that is true. But teens have the free time and inclination to go see a movie and more than enough money to do it. Adults are usually too busy, lazy or cynical to drag themselves to the theater which is why you see more teens there.
I don't think liking or not liking Microsoft has anything to do with this. I think not trusting Microsoft is the issue here. Microsoft has never been totally forthright in its relationships with other buisinesses, whether they are good at movie stuff is irrelivant in partnering with them.
In the context, they do have the majority of the world population. The world total land area comes to about 150Mkm^2. China (9.3Mkm^2) and India (2.9Mkm^2) have a combined area of 12.2Mkm^2, or 8% of the world land area. While the world total population comes to about 6B, China (1.2B) and India (1B) have a combined population of 2.2B, or 37% of the world population.
I don't know what the hell you just said, but you didn't just prove that 2.2G > 6.3G / 2 nomatter what context you are thinking about. Dense doesn't mean numerous, otherwise you could say that the bulk of the world's population lived in Kowloon Walled City before it was demolished, because that had 1,900,000 / km^2 although only having 50,000 people.
There is no context you can possibly put the world into that makes China + India more than half of the world's population and if the Chinese government gets its way, you never will. Sure, Asia might hold a little more than half of the world's population, but Asia is a hell of a lot more than India and China
Everyone here seems to think that this chemical is some benign little teddy bear that the poor hobbiests shouldn't be robbed of. It is NOT benign, it is a powerful oxidiser, how else could it fuel rockets? If a fire were to reach a box of this stuff, it will pass its energy hump and start a self sustaining exothermic reaction that not only evolves enough gas fast enough to explode but gives off enough heat and oxygen to make any secondary fuels (even aluminium or plastic) combust, this can level buildings. That is what it does, that's what its for, that's how it works.
Handling dangerous chemicals in an industrial setting is neccisary, handing chemicals like this in your shed close to people and property is completely different. It doesn't matter how careful you are, a single house fire will set this stuff off and your left with a situation that is dangerous to yourself, your neighbours and firefighting personel. Someone's freedom to do this hobby inside a city is not worth the risk to the public. People get careless, people make mistakes, people even get tired and the neighbours should not pay for it.
We all have the right to get a midsize block outside town (this is Texas we're talking about it) and a law abiding citizen should be able to satisfy a background check. If someone can't do both of those, I'd frankly rather they didn't have this chemical. It's for the good of those people who never asked to be put in the hands of the hobbyist.
Yep, just because something is rare, expensive and slightly less dangerous than RDX/Nitroglycerin/PETN means that nobody would EVER fuck up when handling it. I'm sure that someone at PEPCON probably thought it might be funny to start a fire, or didn't quite realise how rare/expensive it was or was from a racial minority or something. The fact is that like any powerful oxidiser it will cause any burning fuel it comes into contact with to explode. Housefires happen, even if you don't want them to and this shit will turn a housefire into a detonation. If deliberately mixed with another fuel however this stuff could easily be used to blow whatever you want to hell many times over. Petrol is nothing compared to the danger of this stuff, petrol vaporises slowly and needs to have a precise ratio of air to do anything and even then the explosion is feeble. This stuff burns extremely hot and actually gives off more oxygen when it does so along with poisonous chlorine gas. It is very nasty stuff.
How is this guy flaming?
Ammonium Perchlorate is one of the most dangerous chemicals I can think of, not only is it an incredibly powerful explosive, but it is extremely toxic too, giving out large amounts of chlorine gas if allowed to decompose. Imagine if this stuff got into the hands of some drunken, bored rednecks looking for some fun, or some teenager who wants to impress his friends or a normally good natured hobbyist who's emotionally unstable because of a messy custody dispute. The repercussions could be enormous.
This chemical MUST NOT be allowed into urban or sub-urban areas for any reason. Nomatter what someone's hobbys might be, he has no right to fill his garage with this stuff at the risk of the lives of people in the explosive radius. This stuff can and HAS levelled entire blocks, it is not safe, if you want to play with it: buy some open land like the government does, if you cannot: then perhaps find a new hobby.
The slashdot libertarian slant is normally all well and good, but when someone is chastised for advocating keeping this dangerous industrial oxidizer away from family homes it has become clear that much of slashdot has lost touch with the needs of the community in favour of supporting their own ability to live like mad scientists whenever they feel like it.
Ah ha! You have a BMI of 21 but are a complete and utter moron! His point is that he DOES weigh a heck of a lot for his height, he's a short guy but weighs as much as a big guy should weigh. But he also is not fat, 84 cm is a tiny circumference for an 86kg dude and unless he's got a gut the size of a bathtub above his pants he must just be dense for some reason. Even without fat, people just have different shapes and densities, some people float in water whereas some people sink. This dude however would sink in the dead sea. The point is, someone is fat when they have a lot of fat in their body, not when a ratio is over a threshold.
Wow, you started with a firm, confident, unyeilding "No", cited a technical "defition"(sic.) and even highlighted a conjunction in bold for my benifit but completely missed the point. Find out what the word proper means in the context of set theory and then reflect on the stupidity of your comment.
You have posted at least 24 times over the last 4 days, just slow down a little bit, you're just annoying people here.
Yes, JFS and XFS suit you better than Reiser4, but not everyone USES big files, everyone uses small ones though. [XJ]FS suits big files better, Reiser4 supports little ones better, it doesn't mean that one is better than the other.
If the sets are the same, one cannot be a proper subset or superset of the other.
If pornography was a superset of free speech, strict or otherwise then all free speech would be porn. What you mean is that porn is not a subset of free speech. But I think in Ireland which is fairly conservative IIRC, it might actually be a disjoint set to free speech.
1520 was before the first switch date, thus everyone was using the Julian Calender therefore if Jan 13, 1520 happened on a Friday somewhere, it happened on a friday EVERYWHERE.
I know for sure that I've never been put into a situation that would set most passion killers off, I've never been repeatedly abused or had an adulterous spouse or anything. So I'm unwilling to yell "fry 'em" at everyone who kills someone when they get mad and go nuts because I'm not 100% sure I wouldn't. Of course I don't think I would, but neither do most people who do such things. If you can honestly claim that you would never kill someone for any reason you just don't understand what fear, anger and emotional rationalization can do to the nicest people.
Your sig says it all:
You have some strange anarchist mindset where if we just allow everything we don't like then we won't accidently damage anything in the crossfire. As things stand now, the friendly fire in both spam and drugs may well be worse than the problem itself, but the problem itself would be so much greater if it wasn't so damn dangerous to contribute to it. Take drugs for example, why is it that cigarettes and alcohol cause tens of times more death than all illegal drugs combined? Is it because they are less dangerous? No, Marajuana has more tar and carcinegens than tobacco, heroin can kill you in a single dose if it is too high, certain stimulants make you more violent and self destructive than alcohol. Its because anyone can get cigarettes and alchohol, there is more of it around because they are both rightly or wrongly legal. They are common, so they are more of a danger than uncommon things. Well, its the same with spam, if there wasn't over zealous methods to stop it, riddled with false positives then spamming would be easier, people wouldn't need to maintain botnets, people would be able to make their spam readable without saying v14gra or something. The problem would be even greater than it is today. You have to make some sacrifices in life, this is one of them.
The definition you provided is absolutely correct. A nationalist is a person devoted to nationalism. Nationalism is belief in the importance of the welfare of one's own nation. A nation is a social contruct based on culture and identity. Thus a nationalist promotes the welfare of those with the same culture and identity as them. Thus a nationalist does not promote the welfare of those who do not. You can't just quote a dictionary entry and if it doesn't mention a charactaristic then that charactaristic does not pertain to a group, you gotta reason a little first.
And I don't mean racism, Racisim is an irrational belief that races have different worths. Most of the time race doesn't come into it, like when Americans don't like Mexicans in their country. Mexicans and Americans arn't that racially dissimilar, just a lot of people don't like having more poor people in their country and so many people who don't speak English or see the world the same way as they do. They care about their nation's wealth (not wanting more poor people) and they care about the nation's harmony (wanting all people to have the same language and outlook) not about the genes of people, some probably even care about the Mexican nation's dignity too. But they get called racist, because racism has got a bad reputation.
"Rascists", "homophobes", "idiots", why is it that the bulk of ad hominem arguments comes from "the nice people"?. In most cases, what your dealing with is a "Nationalist" (someone who distrusts certain nationalites because of cultural characteristics) or someone who contempt the homosexual lifestyle, rather than fearing homosexuals and someone who's parranoid rather than stupid. Sure, you sometimes get people who think that certain races are inferior and people who actually fear homosexuals but they are far rarer, it just sounds worse to call everyone that.
Anyway, the point is only ideology could make someone do something as stupid as invading Iraq. And also, I beleive that one of the most important parts of supporting someone is reminding them when they are in the process of screwing up a country and millions of people's lives, so support our troops.