What will Americans throw money away on next? Robotic sugar dispensers? Laser guided mayo-appliers for burgers? With so many people in the world today facing starvation and mass death from lack of nutrition, it literally sickens me to the stomach to see things like this.
How many Kosovan orphans could be fed for the price of one of these cans? What percentage of relief efforts in Sudan could be paid for for the cost of the whole campaign? I think America needs to sort out its priorities if it is to regain a positive image in the rest of the world.
I am seriosly not intentionally trolling, but America is rich because it is very productive and a shrewd trading nation. Just like Japan, Canada, France, Italy, Germany and a plethora of others are. Is it wrong to be more prosperous becuse of your own work than others are because of theirs?
Just because America isn't feeding them doesn't make it Americas fault they can't feed themselves. Not helping isn't the same as doing harm. Why do americans or anyone else have a responsibility to look after anyome else than themselves? I thought other nations liked being independent from the US.
I do think we can and should feed all the people of the world, because we can. But I do not believe anyone has the right to demand or expect help, or resent others if it isn't forthcomming. Nobody owes you anything just because you need it and they have it.
I am not an american, and I lived below the poverty line in the county I live in for a few years. I have BEEN one of the poor.
What country are you from? What precentage of your country's GNP goes to feed the starving of the world that you have such a right to preach againt another country? How much do you contribute out of what wage? Have you ever not had the cash to buy food?
The problem with your argument is that the Koran specificly instructs believers to make war on and conquer all non-believers. You don't have to do anything but not be a muslim. Don't take my word for it though, look up Surahs 4:89, 9:123, 8:59-60, 8:39, and 5:51.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ is a site with a few translations placed together so you can look at a few translations of each verse at once.
As far as I know there isn't a bible verse that says "go out and kill or conquer all non believers". Do you know of one???
Just because someone says they're (muslim|christian|whatever) that doesn't mean their professed religion is responsible for their actions because nobody can stop someone from claiming to be (christian|muslim|whatever) and attributing their actions to that religion. Most nutjobs try to justify their hatreds.
This decision says that they can't stop you from running your own network on Wi-Fi, not that they have to let you attach that network to their network.
Rather than make a few tens of dollars selling an old drive, take it apart, and burn the platters until they're nothing more than dust. Problem solved. ...then mix the dust with concrete and water, let it harden into several small chunks, charter a ship around the world, and drop each chunk in a different spot in the ocean.
Actually, by mixing it into concrete you're making it stay together and therefore making it more recoverable. Better to scatter it from an airplane into one or more urban areas. (there's more metal and plastic residue to hide among in an urban setting)
Honestly, the life of an Apple product is a lot longer than a typical windows PC. I still use my Powermac 9500 (running 10.3.4) but I have retired my 600Mhz Pentium III.
So what? I still use my pentium 200, and I'm fixing up a pentum 90 to use as a firewall. I will admit my computer use habits are not typical, but how many people still use their Powermac 9500s? Maybe you're not a typical user either.
Anthrax is not very deadly because it needs to be eaten or inhaled to have much chance of harming you, and anthrax is not an airbourne pathogen. So don't eat from the petri dishes.
Weapons grade anthrax is made airborne by grinding it into a fine powder then it's placed in a shell or bomb designed to disperse it. Used like this it's quite deadly. The delivery system is far harder to make than the anthrax.
Regulatting anthrax this way is like regulatting raw lead instead of guns.
"Linux is a leprosy; and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software industry sector."
This is nothing new. What do you think henry ford did to his competitors? The only way to avoid "steadily depreciating the value" of somebodies business is to never invent better ways to do anything. This is blatant anti-progress retoric.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from now. No hard feelings.
My main grudge against US forein policy is that when they do interfere it's only for their own benifit, and they have "flexible" morals. Nobody can realy respect a person or country that doesn't stand behind their beliefs, whether or not you agree with them.
My point is that some bacteria somewhere already has every gene it needs to resist just about any drug, just not all in one bacteria. It's not a disproof of evolution that these genes already exist, but it's not a proof either. That is my point, the resistance to anti-biotics is not a proof of anything other than the limited usefullness of antibiotics.
The whole argument against the university is flawed because you don't pay the university for a diploma, you pay them for a chance to earn a diploma. If they sold diplomas then the diplomas would be worthless. Failing students who don't do the work well enough is what gives a diploma it's worth, because it shows that those who do earn one can actually do the work.
The whole point is that in a given population of bacteria there are already some that are immune to a drug even before it's developed. When you use a drug on a person if it kills 99.999% of the bacteria then the remaining 0.001% probaby have a resitance. They don't need to evolve what some already have.
There is no "standard bacteria" anymore than there is a "standard mammal" or "standard fish". There is a rich pool of different genetics present naturally in all species, and the odds are good that almost any trait you could want is present somewhere. Also, some bacteria can trade genes with other bacteria thereby gaining traits new to them. When you use much antibiotics you are essentially breeding the non-resistant bacteria out of the gene pool and therefore upping the odds of that gene being passed around. It's no different than breeding animals to be smaller, stop the larger ones from reproducing and the puppies will be smaller with each generation.
Despite the changes in the organism, you aren't adding new genes. You are taking the less favorable genes away.
Those genes are there for a reason though. What's a survival trait today can be a liability tomorrow, so having a genetic code for a trait you're not using distributed among a population as recessive genes is itself a survival trait.
Larger animals are usually the first to go when there's a disaster or climate/habitat change.
Large carnivores need large prey. See next paragraph.
Large herbivores need large vegitation. An impact like this would also create an ice age, even a large volcano can effect the climate for years. The heat pulse then climate change would kill off most of the large vegitation.
There's plenty of evidence of evolution out there. I'll go ahead and choose the easiest to see: bacteria. There's a reason that penicillin (and other antibiotics) don't work much any more. The bacteria they used to kill have developed an immunity to their effects. One might even go so far as to say they evolved into a new form of species that is immune/resistant to the effects of antibiotics. There's some evidence for you right there.
Penicillin imunity is an example of natural selection, not evolution. If only 0.01% of a population is sufficiently hardy to survive then those are the traits that survive. AFAIK no antibacterials are 100% effective.
It's a fine but real distinction, but for something to be evolution it must be a new trait. Domestication is another good example of "natural selection", it's just humans instead of survival doing the selecting.
As to the middle east situation, my opinion is that we should never have got involved in the first place. It's a huge mess and we're better off without becomming part of it, at least not as combatants or arms dealers.
As to the Germany Vs the World, I said that germany could take asia and africa, not the US. There's no land bridge across to american soil, and the atlantic is wide enough to make an invasion very tricky.
Also, I said they could probably take over asia and africa, not that they could hold that much territory for any significant period. Also, they'd have all the raw materials a growwing empire needs from capturing russian territory, so I dought they'd try too hard. Isn't a violent facist german state ruling europe bad enough to want to stop?
As to Vietnam, the USSR was funding the north. It was russian guns and planes the north where fighting with. The US was also worried about pushing to hard and bringing china or russia all the way into the war.
The problems the US has in the middle east are the result of 50 years of forein policy, not recent actions. But it doesn't cheer me much to see them still gleefully making it worse now. The american military doesn't even follow the geneva conventions anymore and ignores the UN. I can't see any good reason for them to have started a war with Iraq.
The main gyst of my stance against non-interference practiced to an extreme is that it's not always the best tactic. Why I brought up Hitler is because if the league of nations had stomped on him as soon as he first invaded another country then the damage from WW2 could have been reduced. And if the US had not interfered then the germans would have captured and kept most of europe, and possibly more.
How can one have propper democratic discourse on an issue if people are too busy calling each other names to debate? "Agree with me or the terrorists win" type argumets are pathetic. You should stop calling people imperialist just because they don't believe in a system of absolute non interference.
"Once you label me you negate me." Soren Kierkegaard
The "asshats with some data mining software at a private corporation" where contractors hired by the government to make that software. They where not some random bozo's off the street. The 120,000 names where flagged by the software the government paid them to make.
Should the government be barred from getting contractors to make them software? Or do you just object to them using the results of the software they paid to have made?
What you are advocating IS genocide and crimes against humanity. What the Romans did would be considered crimes against humanity. Of course, when the Romans were around it was tolerated just like slavery was but not now...
You miss my point. I am stating that I think that one cannot efectively empire build without being evil. So, one should not try to empire build, because the methods that work are evil.
Non-intervention is based on home country only. It doesn't matter what other countries do unless they directly threaten...
US domestic oil production has been going down because of lack of new deposits since 1970. It was apperent that was happening sooner than then. The US is dependent on oil, and anything that treatens their supply is a significant threat. Without oil the american economy would nose dive.
USSR did influence some of the Middle Eastern countries. Who was supplying weapons to the Middle East?
Everyone who manufactured weapons was selling them weapons. The US and Russia where probably the biggest supliers by far though, the US to the states they favored, and the russians likewise.
In any case, it doesn't matter who controls the resources because of capitalism. The Middle Eastern countries need to sell their oil. They can't just sit on it...
Why not? Are you going to force them to sell it? They can just leave it in the ground. What if they put an embargo on oil shipments to the US?
Capatalisim doesn't help you if the country isn't capatalist, if the USSR had taken over the middle east they would have taken the oil and kept it for themselves.
I don't want to get into WWII because there wouldn't even have been one if USA, France and Britain didn't slap massive reparations on Germany....
The US never supported the reperations, in fact they where the only one against them.
Also, Germany basically lost the war even before USA actually sent troops.
Long before the US ever sent troops it was sending immense amounts of supplies to England on credit (technicly an act of war by international law) and guarding the convoys with american naval vessels with orders to sink submarines. Even before the americans sent troops they where bankrolling the british war effort.
Britain would have run out of food and war materials long before the americans sent troops if not for this.
Contrary to US propaganda, Nazi Germany wouldn't have taken over anything signficant.
So, what do you call almost all of mainland europe?
It couldn't even defeat USSR (couldn't even control Moscow) so I don't know how you expect them to control the Middle East, Africa, and Asia...
They got stoped within sight of Moscow before the winter stopped them. Moscow was the centre of the russian rail network, it's capture would have cut their inferstructure and supply lines apart. If it hadn't been for a rebelion in yugoslavia delaying the attack they'd have had 6 more weeks to use. They lost more men to the winter than to the russians.
Russia was the only industrial power in asia, and there where no industrial powers in africa. With russia gone the germans could have taken whatever they wanted, but they'd not need anything further than russia as russia had all the oil and farmland that germany needed.
How can one get probible cause without investigating? I'm not proposing they should get search warrants or something because of the database results. The whole political issue is a red herring.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless they put in on the plane still in the box einstein.
Just because America isn't feeding them doesn't make it Americas fault they can't feed themselves. Not helping isn't the same as doing harm. Why do americans or anyone else have a responsibility to look after anyome else than themselves? I thought other nations liked being independent from the US.
I do think we can and should feed all the people of the world, because we can. But I do not believe anyone has the right to demand or expect help, or resent others if it isn't forthcomming. Nobody owes you anything just because you need it and they have it.
I am not an american, and I lived below the poverty line in the county I live in for a few years. I have BEEN one of the poor.
What country are you from? What precentage of your country's GNP goes to feed the starving of the world that you have such a right to preach againt another country? How much do you contribute out of what wage? Have you ever not had the cash to buy food?
Unless I'm mistaken, most people who talk to their plants don't want to cut them and put them in a vase or jar.
The problem with your argument is that the Koran specificly instructs believers to make war on and conquer all non-believers. You don't have to do anything but not be a muslim. Don't take my word for it though, look up Surahs 4:89, 9:123, 8:59-60, 8:39, and 5:51.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ is a site with a few translations placed together so you can look at a few translations of each verse at once.
As far as I know there isn't a bible verse that says "go out and kill or conquer all non believers". Do you know of one???
Just because someone says they're (muslim|christian|whatever) that doesn't mean their professed religion is responsible for their actions because nobody can stop someone from claiming to be (christian|muslim|whatever) and attributing their actions to that religion. Most nutjobs try to justify their hatreds.
They sure can.
This decision says that they can't stop you from running your own network on Wi-Fi, not that they have to let you attach that network to their network.
Exactly my reasoning. Also: 7 I can be more sure the manufacturer doesn't put in un-removeable backdoors if I'm the manufacturer
Honestly, the life of an Apple product is a lot longer than a typical windows PC. I still use my Powermac 9500 (running 10.3.4) but I have retired my 600Mhz Pentium III.
So what? I still use my pentium 200, and I'm fixing up a pentum 90 to use as a firewall. I will admit my computer use habits are not typical, but how many people still use their Powermac 9500s? Maybe you're not a typical user either.
Anthrax is not very deadly because it needs to be eaten or inhaled to have much chance of harming you, and anthrax is not an airbourne pathogen. So don't eat from the petri dishes.
Weapons grade anthrax is made airborne by grinding it into a fine powder then it's placed in a shell or bomb designed to disperse it. Used like this it's quite deadly. The delivery system is far harder to make than the anthrax.
Regulatting anthrax this way is like regulatting raw lead instead of guns.
"Linux is a leprosy; and is having a deleterious effect on the U.S. IT industry because it is steadily depreciating the value of the software industry sector."
This is nothing new. What do you think henry ford did to his competitors? The only way to avoid "steadily depreciating the value" of somebodies business is to never invent better ways to do anything. This is blatant anti-progress retoric.
They had to pay all the costs of trying to educate this moron, why shouldn't they be paid?
Yeah, I see where you're coming from now. No hard feelings. My main grudge against US forein policy is that when they do interfere it's only for their own benifit, and they have "flexible" morals. Nobody can realy respect a person or country that doesn't stand behind their beliefs, whether or not you agree with them.
that's a circular argument, and beside the point.
My point is that some bacteria somewhere already has every gene it needs to resist just about any drug, just not all in one bacteria. It's not a disproof of evolution that these genes already exist, but it's not a proof either. That is my point, the resistance to anti-biotics is not a proof of anything other than the limited usefullness of antibiotics.
The whole argument against the university is flawed because you don't pay the university for a diploma, you pay them for a chance to earn a diploma. If they sold diplomas then the diplomas would be worthless. Failing students who don't do the work well enough is what gives a diploma it's worth, because it shows that those who do earn one can actually do the work.
The whole point is that in a given population of bacteria there are already some that are immune to a drug even before it's developed. When you use a drug on a person if it kills 99.999% of the bacteria then the remaining 0.001% probaby have a resitance. They don't need to evolve what some already have. There is no "standard bacteria" anymore than there is a "standard mammal" or "standard fish". There is a rich pool of different genetics present naturally in all species, and the odds are good that almost any trait you could want is present somewhere. Also, some bacteria can trade genes with other bacteria thereby gaining traits new to them. When you use much antibiotics you are essentially breeding the non-resistant bacteria out of the gene pool and therefore upping the odds of that gene being passed around. It's no different than breeding animals to be smaller, stop the larger ones from reproducing and the puppies will be smaller with each generation. Despite the changes in the organism, you aren't adding new genes. You are taking the less favorable genes away. Those genes are there for a reason though. What's a survival trait today can be a liability tomorrow, so having a genetic code for a trait you're not using distributed among a population as recessive genes is itself a survival trait.
Larger animals are usually the first to go when there's a disaster or climate/habitat change.
Large carnivores need large prey. See next paragraph.
Large herbivores need large vegitation. An impact like this would also create an ice age, even a large volcano can effect the climate for years. The heat pulse then climate change would kill off most of the large vegitation.
There's plenty of evidence of evolution out there. I'll go ahead and choose the easiest to see: bacteria. There's a reason that penicillin (and other antibiotics) don't work much any more. The bacteria they used to kill have developed an immunity to their effects. One might even go so far as to say they evolved into a new form of species that is immune/resistant to the effects of antibiotics. There's some evidence for you right there.
Penicillin imunity is an example of natural selection, not evolution. If only 0.01% of a population is sufficiently hardy to survive then those are the traits that survive. AFAIK no antibacterials are 100% effective.
It's a fine but real distinction, but for something to be evolution it must be a new trait. Domestication is another good example of "natural selection", it's just humans instead of survival doing the selecting.
As to the middle east situation, my opinion is that we should never have got involved in the first place. It's a huge mess and we're better off without becomming part of it, at least not as combatants or arms dealers.
As to the Germany Vs the World, I said that germany could take asia and africa, not the US. There's no land bridge across to american soil, and the atlantic is wide enough to make an invasion very tricky.
Also, I said they could probably take over asia and africa, not that they could hold that much territory for any significant period. Also, they'd have all the raw materials a growwing empire needs from capturing russian territory, so I dought they'd try too hard. Isn't a violent facist german state ruling europe bad enough to want to stop?
As to Vietnam, the USSR was funding the north. It was russian guns and planes the north where fighting with. The US was also worried about pushing to hard and bringing china or russia all the way into the war.
The problems the US has in the middle east are the result of 50 years of forein policy, not recent actions. But it doesn't cheer me much to see them still gleefully making it worse now. The american military doesn't even follow the geneva conventions anymore and ignores the UN. I can't see any good reason for them to have started a war with Iraq.
The main gyst of my stance against non-interference practiced to an extreme is that it's not always the best tactic. Why I brought up Hitler is because if the league of nations had stomped on him as soon as he first invaded another country then the damage from WW2 could have been reduced. And if the US had not interfered then the germans would have captured and kept most of europe, and possibly more.
How can one have propper democratic discourse on an issue if people are too busy calling each other names to debate? "Agree with me or the terrorists win" type argumets are pathetic. You should stop calling people imperialist just because they don't believe in a system of absolute non interference.
"Once you label me you negate me."
Soren Kierkegaard
You don't need a reel. The balast on the top end of the elevator will haul the top bit of ribbon into space with it as it leaves earth orbit.
The "asshats with some data mining software at a private corporation" where contractors hired by the government to make that software. They where not some random bozo's off the street. The 120,000 names where flagged by the software the government paid them to make.
Should the government be barred from getting contractors to make them software? Or do you just object to them using the results of the software they paid to have made?
What you are advocating IS genocide and crimes against humanity. What the Romans did would be considered crimes against humanity. Of course, when the Romans were around it was tolerated just like slavery was but not now...
You miss my point. I am stating that I think that one cannot efectively empire build without being evil. So, one should not try to empire build, because the methods that work are evil.
Non-intervention is based on home country only. It doesn't matter what other countries do unless they directly threaten...
US domestic oil production has been going down because of lack of new deposits since 1970. It was apperent that was happening sooner than then. The US is dependent on oil, and anything that treatens their supply is a significant threat. Without oil the american economy would nose dive.
USSR did influence some of the Middle Eastern countries. Who was supplying weapons to the Middle East?
Everyone who manufactured weapons was selling them weapons. The US and Russia where probably the biggest supliers by far though, the US to the states they favored, and the russians likewise.
In any case, it doesn't matter who controls the resources because of capitalism. The Middle Eastern countries need to sell their oil. They can't just sit on it...
Why not? Are you going to force them to sell it? They can just leave it in the ground. What if they put an embargo on oil shipments to the US?
Capatalisim doesn't help you if the country isn't capatalist, if the USSR had taken over the middle east they would have taken the oil and kept it for themselves.
I don't want to get into WWII because there wouldn't even have been one if USA, France and Britain didn't slap massive reparations on Germany....
The US never supported the reperations, in fact they where the only one against them.
Also, Germany basically lost the war even before USA actually sent troops.
Long before the US ever sent troops it was sending immense amounts of supplies to England on credit (technicly an act of war by international law) and guarding the convoys with american naval vessels with orders to sink submarines. Even before the americans sent troops they where bankrolling the british war effort.
Britain would have run out of food and war materials long before the americans sent troops if not for this.
Contrary to US propaganda, Nazi Germany wouldn't have taken over anything signficant.
So, what do you call almost all of mainland europe?
It couldn't even defeat USSR (couldn't even control Moscow) so I don't know how you expect them to control the Middle East, Africa, and Asia...
They got stoped within sight of Moscow before the winter stopped them. Moscow was the centre of the russian rail network, it's capture would have cut their inferstructure and supply lines apart. If it hadn't been for a rebelion in yugoslavia delaying the attack they'd have had 6 more weeks to use. They lost more men to the winter than to the russians.
Russia was the only industrial power in asia, and there where no industrial powers in africa. With russia gone the germans could have taken whatever they wanted, but they'd not need anything further than russia as russia had all the oil and farmland that germany needed.
>Your mistake is to imagine that moderators read at threshold 0. Neither have they read the moderating faq, and frequently not even the article.
Well, of course not. They're suposed to be average slashdotters right?
How can one get probible cause without investigating? I'm not proposing they should get search warrants or something because of the database results. The whole political issue is a red herring.
Oops, that should have read bear non-sterile live offspring...