Are you saying that only genetic qualities matter in natural selection? I agree with the grandparent post; everything you become is not limited to your genes. Your options to reproduce are based on physical traits, that much is true. However, things like confidence and money can come from a good background. Your psychology comes from your genetics and your life experiences. The country you grow up in maters, as does religion. (every sperm is sacred). All of this goes into making you and ultimately you making babies.
On the other hand, some people in poor communities spit out little miracles like their is no tomorrow. Thunk. Thunk. So this argument could go either way.
As we learn to treat more and more genetic diseases, less pressure is placed on removing those genes. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
It is a bad thing. We've lost the filter aspect of evolution. Sure, the genes are changing, but it's no longer survival of the fittest. Say 100 years ago disease X killed all carriers of the defective gene before they could breed. With modern medicine, they can live a full life. The side-effect is that if they then have children, the defective gene gets passed down. Given enough generations, every one will be carrying it eventually. This doesn't count for fatal diseases, for example I believe that in 100 years or so everyone will have poor eyesight. It's so easy to rectify, so the poorly-sighted hunter/gatherers no longer go hungry.
What's the solution? Give up medicine all together? Cull the weak? Ban genenicly deficient people from having children? Somehow, everything that might solve this is infinately worse than the problem itself. I guess we'll just need to get used to depending on medicine as a race in order to continue.
Yup; there is something to be said for overwhelming your opponent with shear numbers. After all, isn't that how we lost Vietnam?
No. The fundamental problem was that the people you were fighting for weren't really on your side. Vietnam was an extension of the cold war; a war by proxy. No one had WMD and it wasn't "for freedom and democracy". It was simply "we don't like the communists". You never knew who the enemy was, the local population had no clear allegencies. It was an insurgency style of warfare, similar to what's happening in Iraq, hit and run attacks, booby traps. Numbers only really count in regular battlefield conflicts or for holding ground. Vietnam was the first (IIRC) US war where holding ground was actually a disadvantage. They knew exactly where you where, but you didn't even know who, let alone where the enemy was. Vietnam was unwillable. Unfortunately I believe Iraq is in exactly the same situation.
Yet they pulled it off. At the time, the british army was 'the best funded and best trained army in the world.'
Good point. However, times are very different. Back then it was swords and muskets. The people had similar weaponry. Not the case now. I don't know the fine-print, but from what I understand you are very limited in terms of automatic rifles. No full auto, surpressor. You'll be fighting a force that has night-vision and excellent comms. You don't stand a chance if it came down to a US Civil War. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of arms among the population. I'd imagine that most were pistols, almost completely useless in a civil war against troops with body armour and M4s.
Well than i really hope your dictator decides to resign when the masses don't like him
Just where the hell do you think I live?:-) Are you one of these people who believes that the US is the only country with democracy and freedom? Jeez, you guys ripped us Brits off on most of these, you've government is practically a carbon-copy of the UK parliment. Our Bill Of Rights equivalent is something like 600 years old. You also still seem to believe that you have more freedom than us. You don't. You only have the right to bear arms; otherwise Europe is way ahead of you. We didn't have separate toilets for "colored" just 40 years ago, remember that fact. For a large part of the US population, freedom is a novelty. You ought to get out more and take a look at the rest of the world. It might surprise you.
US freedom is largly based around Christian values. Homesexual activity is unacceptable in many places, you can't smoke a joint legally, gambling I've mentioned already. Freedom of speach is limited to specified "freedom zones" and if you speak out agains a company you better have deep pockets and good lawyers. Any other freedom can be easilly suspended with one simple phrase: 9-11.
Besides, that wasn't my point. All I was saying there that the "well maintained milita" is irrelevant in a modern country. The News Media does just the same job nowadays.
Fine, name one that hasn't. Could any old citizen own a gun in Saddam's Iraq?
I believe they could. Thanks for providing me with the counter-example.
If the only consequence is that some people would be upset, do you really think that would stop them?
Yes. It's supposed to be "democracy", remember? Even if you discount the political power of groups like the NRA, most Americans would not be happy to see that right vanish. Personally, I'd rather they defended the other rights you (and us) are losing.
Brits have always been jealous of american freedom. Now that we have lost it, they are gloating.
No we haven't. No one is, ever. You really should come over here and take a look. I don't know what world you think we live in, but we don't think about America every waking minute. There is nothing freedom-wise that you have that we don't. Except arms, but that's not much of a freedom IMHO. I'd rather have the freedom to be safe from crack-heads. But that's a different argument that we really should avoid.
Honestly, we are just as free as you. If you put a side the "we are the free-est!" propaganda you have grown up with and take a look at the worlds laws, you will see the truth that is used to blind you. Patriotism. I hope the irony is not lost on you. By unquestioningly accepting your system as being the best, you can be abused without complaint and don't even realise it.
Oh, and gambling is legal most places in the US now. (Big fucking deal, the freedom to pour money down the drain.)
Gambling reflects PERSONAL FREEDOM. As in, a group cannot make an activity illegal because it is morally questionable to them. That's the definition of freedom; the ability to perform unpopular activities or express unpopular views. The moment you start legislating based on morality rather than things like damage to society, then things are pretty messed up.
Sorry, but the right to bear arms exists so that the citizens can overthrow their government, should the need arise. Do a little research into our founders and you'll see that's exactly why we have that right.
You seriously think the US population could overthrow their government, given even 90% armed public support? "A well regulated milita" maybe, but a bunch of disorganized civilians against the best funded and best trained army in the world?
This is an illusionary right. It hasn't made sense for about 100 years. Try and exercise it, and they'll Waco your ass.
(I'm not sayinging it's a dictatorship; 90% public support against the adminstration would force resignations etc. It's just the armed part of the revolt that's outdated)
Also note that each and every repressive government disarms its citizens as one of its first actions. Again, do research some history.
EVERY one? Hardly. And the US government would take away your guns if they thought they'd get away with it. You know it and I know it; the only reason they can't and never will is because the right to bear arms is so engrained in the american belief system.
Which means he's not free anyway. In britain, you are a "subject", not a "citizen" which is another way to say "slave".
I'd bet you money that we are more free than you, but gambling isn't allowed in the USA. Some biblical/moral reason I believe. Next you'll be telling me that you are outlawing abortion or something.
There is more to freedom than guns. If anything, guns are anti-freedom. Someone with a gun pointed at them has NO freedom whatsoever. We've had most of the rights you think you invented for longer than your country has existed. Granted they are being removed now, but you are coming along for the ride it seems, we are riding shotgun on this one...
It is completely immoral and evil, of course, but when has that stopped a business from doing it ?
Absolutely. Most religions ban this practice, including Christianity. However, this part of the bible was conviently forgotten about many centuries ago.
Some Islamic cultures still observe the "no-interest" laws and provide loans and mortgages that all your to work around it without consigning your soul to eternal hellfire and damnation.
Because for much of history since then, they killed anyone who tried.
Am I the only one concerned that those who believe in the Rapture are currently in the position to make it happen? Bush and Blair have now both admitted to "seeking the advice of God" when choosing to invade another country. They also believe that when the end comes, the rightous will accend to heaven and all will be good. All this can be theirs if they just push the world into WW3. Personally, I don't think anyone who believes in the afterlife should be allowed to send soldiers to their death. People who believe in eternal life just don't value real life enough.
By the way, the same applies to all religions that exhibit violent behaviour. The three big religious brands are just as bad as each other. They all teach that their sect is superiour to others, and that the godless ones must be converted at all costs. Some even specifically mention other religions and place their believers as being worth less than cattle.
Religion is evolutionary. The peaceful ones were gobbled up years ago by the monopolists that now control the market. Does the vatican issue shares? I want a piece of that action...
We do not know the exact dates of composition of the gospels.
Yes, but we do know that they reference other events that allow us to determine the earliest point that they could have possibly been written. That's where the 50 years figure came from, though I remember reading it as 80. What's 30 years when we are talking legends and chinese whispers...
their actual source materials may have been written long before that, likely when Jesus was still alive.
That's just wishful thinking from someone who wants to believe, without even a shred of evidence. The four gospels were clearly copied from each other; each "expands" on the former.
We have manuscripts from the early seconds century onward, so we can establish the textual history of the new testament to a greater degree of certainty than any other historic document collection.
Archive.org has many pages from the earliest days of the internet. As the content is very old, it MUST be true.
The compositional history of the gospels is a very complicated thing, in case you were wondering;-).
No it's not; it's just those who choose to ignore the facts and "teach the controversy". The controversy that is ALWAYS missed out is that most religions that predate Christianity consist of most of the same core "facts", such as the virgin birth, the great flood, martydom, yadda yadda yadda.
You miss the point. The other person just has to say they never received them. Your server logs and archive emails are meaningless. Here in the UK, important post is sent "recorded delivery", where the receiver has to sign. Other countries will have their equivalents. THAT is evidence, it shows that the message was received.
The absense of a bounce report in your logs shows nothing. All that your PGP signing does is ensures that the person on the other end cannot change your emails, or produce new entirely fake ones. It is something, but it's still heresay as far as a court will see it, unless the other person has the same messages, they can't don't prove anything.
If I tried to explain why, in this day and age, when running an entire business empire online, I considered "Internet communications" unreliable, I think my efforts would end up "incomprehensible" too!
How's this for comprehensibilty?:
I could fake a mail from you to Saddam Hussain stating that you would like to assasinate one of your political leaders for one hundred billion dollars. (hello to the security people now joining us, calm down, it's just an example). This email chain has dates and times.
Now, try and prove to me the following: a) you didn't write it at all, b) it is exactly as first sent, c) the message was never sent in the first place.
Computer logs are even less reliable than eyewitnesses. And eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable as well...as any lawyer/judge/cop.
There is lots of data backing this up, showing addiction rates against supply at the time. Correlating this with purity over the same periods, the graphs fit. The points were the usage dropped clearly coincided with where the supply was impacted via laws changes and other enforcement activities. They can even identify the impacts of particular cartels based on their operational periods.
You know, there is a lot more evidence and logical arguments for this outside of my post. You can't base the argument on what I wrote; I'm just some guy on the internet.
Yeah, cos Sudofed is the ONLY cough remedy available. You know that speed, mdma, cocaine and heroin were once "remedies" for various ailments? Should we legalise all of the date rape drugs because they also have some beneficial qualities?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a hippy liberal apparently (according to some replies to my posts). However, there are some limits as clearly many people just aren't capable or in the position to make a sensible opinion on what they ingest for kicks. If banning is the way were are to tackle these problems, then so be it. I tend towards education and regulation, something banning does nothing for.
What are you gunna do, climb the counter to get back your license?
Yes. What's he going to do? Fight back for minimum wage? Hardly. If you have nothing to hide (can't believe I used that cliche), you aren't going to get in trouble if the cops come. You are an honest citizen and you wanted your identification back. Ask the assistant under which law they believe they can take your license and when you point out it's bogus, warn them that you are about to take it off them. If they continue to be a jerk, just take it off them using minimum force. There is NOTHING stopping them noting your name and address, they do not need to keep your license.
Isn't it an offence to drive in the US without a license on you at all times? Surely no civilian has the right to keep whatever identity papers you use. In most countries, passports, driving licenses etc remain the property of the government at all times.
Do you think the extra hassle for customers has stopped meth labs?
Yes, essentially it did stop them. They used to be large barns/warehouses buying the precursers in in bulk and producing large high quality batches. The addition rate for meth follows the purity of the drug. Once the supply chain was locked down all that was left was the kitchen labs. The usage dropped significantly, especially with the poor quality crap made from crushed cough medicine pills.
Banning the precursor has worked for several drugs, some of which you won't have heard of because of the success. The only reason these cold and flu remedies weren't banned outright is because of the drug industry bribery to politicians.
PBS's Frontline did a good documentary on the topic; worth a look.
That is unless you think it's coming from zombified Windows boxes, in which case it won't really do anything
Exactly. Most spam comes from where the home-user computers are. The problem is so bad M$ included a connection-rate limiter in XP2 to limit the amount of new connections created in X seconds.
Spam isn't racist or nationalist, like many of us are.
I think the point is that if China create their own DNS, they will filter other DNS requests at The Great Firewall. This will likely be outgoing only; I'm sure other countries will be able to query the Chinese system.
There is one huge advantage in this for them; The Great Firewall turns from being a blacklist to a whitelist. Instead of blocking sites based on reports or automatic scanning of content, allowed sites would have to be enabled on the Chinese DNS system. Their DNS would know to delegate to the global DNS system for those domains, meaning transparent connectivity to the remainder of the internet. Where permitted.
The rest of the world could mess with this by replacing web links with IPs. However that isn't going to happen unless DNS gets really broken. BUT....in world politics, showing face is important. Depending on a foreign power for DNS isn't appealing to most countries, especially when the current maintainer has been acting a little differently lately. Europe has made requests to be more involved in the management of the system, largely for the same reason.
I often defend China on the intarwebs. It's an amazing culture going back 3,000 years. Unfortunately some people like Mao made some really bad calls with regard to the betterment of their population. This is only recent history. The Chinese are a strong nation and it is generally agreed upon that as a nation they are going to become increasingly a larger player in world affairs. Like the US of old, they are very insular. This is changing as a result of the world changing via technologies such as the internet and increasing world trade and commericialisation. China has special economic zones that are essentially capitalist. They cannot censor the internet, it's simply not possible to a) monitor it all or b) stay ahead of disident techniques. This war will have many casualties in terms of students getting locked up and the like, but I honestly do believe that the Chinese people of 2016 will be very different to the current ones. The whole totalatarism thing is played out over there. It's our turn now.
Have you ever considered that the whole star wars thing may have been a well constructed bluff.
It's not. The domination of space has been on the Project for a New American Centuries list of objectives for a long time. They wish to control space for the strategic and ecconomic betterment of the USA. It's on their website and in many of their publications. For a group which wishes to take over the world, they are surprisingly open. Oh, in case you don't know who they are, the PNAC is essentially the upper echelons of the current US administration; Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Prior to being elected, the group were just another Washington think-tank. Now they run the show.
Everybody isn't gonna just start getting along, it doesn't make a bit of sense not to protect ourselves.
Yes and no. Eisnehower warned against the dangers of increasing military spending and the wag-the-dog syndrome it brings. Star Wars is not a credible defence program. Who is it defending from? Is China going to nuke it's biggest trading partner then be nuked back into the stone age? Hardly. Star Wars is an offensive program with the intention of being able to destroy any space assets where the outcome is profitable to the United States.
They also seek to control the internet in the exact same way. The following is from their 2000 report. That's right, 19 months prior to the event that supposedly "changed everything". If you ask me, s/changed/enabled/g on that quote. Anyway, here are their stated goals, emphasis added by me for the "stuff that matters":
Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East
Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities
Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space
Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace
Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.
Apparently their demand for one hundred billion dollars is in the post...
That's like buying a TV with a built in DVD player, VHS, Stereo receiver, gaming platform, and computer all in one package.
Bad analogy. Your home media centre doesn't need to be portable. Convergence works for portable items, as you get more functionality per ounce. You might carry a phone, a pda, and a mp3 player. I don't.
The really sad part, though, is that the developers can't even secure something as simple as a damn phone.
I'd take this discussion with a pinch of salt. There are several companies selling anti-virus solutions for the Pocket PC platform which I use. Small problem...there aren't any viruses except for one "proof of concept" which is basically a program that copies itself. Wow. I'd love to see what their virus signatures are looking for.
Just because people are selling software, it doesn't mean it's required. Winfixer anyone?
Is it all just about cinema attendance, i.e. not wanting Europeans to get their hands on USA DVDs before a US film is released at cinemas in Europe. If that is the case I cannot believe that zoning generates more revenue than it costs in lost sales.
It does make far more money. There are several reasons why the industry might want to release at different times in different areas. Film reels are very expensive and the reels from e.g. the US opening weekend will get sent on to Europe for showing there. Remember that most boxoffice sales are in the first couple of weeks from the opening, after that the number of screens showing the movie drops considerably.
Another thought is promotion. At the simplest level, the money made from the US weekend can go into advertising elsewhere. If the film flops in the US, it might not even get released elsewhere. Also, the stars of the film tend to go on TV to promote the movie. They can only be in one country at a time.
I was an early DVD adopter and there was a period when I was importing US disks several weeks before cinematic release over here. This happened mostly because of the aforementioned release stagger, but also because DVD releases were out sooner to promote the format early on. It's not so common now.
Recently a movie was released in DVD retail and the box office on the same day; a possible sign of things changing. Unfortunately the cinemas went apeshit at this possible attack on their business model and many refused to show it over this simple issue.
Now throw in today's craze to mix as surround sound. [snip] Just as fake if not more so. I have yet to be convinced that it is actually worth it.
I have a few music DVDs with 5.1 soundtracks. On some it's exactly the gimic you describe, just a remix over four channels. However, there are some in which it is very well done, mostly live stuff where the spacial information is real, or something that was created with surround in mind.
Then where does it get the rear channel from when you play a CD in Dolby Pro Logic?
The same source as it gets it from on TV, VHS and DVD. As the grandparent says, pro-logic is encoded using a phase shift, that's all there is to it. You can record it to any audio media provided it's a reasonable fidelity. It's not perfect, the rear channels have a limited frequency range, and the sound isn't 100% discrete like 5.1 is.
The two-channel feed on most DVDs is usually pro-logic encoded. However, part of the DVD specification calls for a 5.1 downmixer that can take the 5.1 audio, encode using pro-logic, then output over the left and right channel. If you have your DVD player just hooked up to your TV (non 5.1), then this is exactly what you have. If it's a pro-logic TV, it will work as intended.
You can get a similar effect with two speakers. If the left channel is exactly out of phase with the right, the sound does not appear to come from the speakers but instead lacks direction. If they are in phase, it sounds as if it's coming from the middle. Providided you are in the "sweet spot" of the speakers this is.
The really really clever bit is that pro-logic uses the exact same phase shift. So you can actually play non-prologic media and get a relatively acurate effect. Not something you'd want to do with music, but live concerts work well. The crowd noise does actually come out of the rear speakers.
The centre in pro-logic is simply all of the audio that is present on both the L-R channel and in-phase.
if we are there for the oil, then why are the Iraqis voting? Why aren't we voting for their president?
How is that a logical argument? And do you think that any leader of Iraq would be able to reclaim the oil for the Iraq people? A few leaders have done this in the past. Che Guevara. Fidel Castro. The moment they turned their backs on the businessmen and turned to their people, they are history. The oil contracts in Iraq will not be changing hands any time soon.
The US does not fight for democracy any more. I suggest you pick up a history book. One of the CIA's largest functions for the past 30 years or so has been the subverting democratic elections around the world. Mostly South America though. These interventions range from simple funding of the opposing party (even if they are genocidal), through to arming, training and operational support for uprisings (even if they are genocidal). This isn't tin-foil hat stuff, it's documented history now.
The most obvious reason for taking the oil fields is to attempt to make them secure so Iraq can use them to fund their new economy.
Granted, that's a perfectly sound argument, especially as you point out the Kuwait oil fires years ago. Wouldn't the hospitals and schools have also been a wise choice? The distribution of forces in Iraq did not have the welfare of the Iraqi people in mind. The oil was flowing out of the country long before many residents had water and electricity. Those last two are pretty key for maintaining an economy, agreed? They wanted an economy sure, but not for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Take off your tin foil hat and find a new hobby.
You really think this is a paranoid fantasy? Have you looked at the billions of dollars that have been flowing around, and where they are going? Aren't you in the slightest bit worried that your politicans might have other interests in mind than Iraqi democracy? A quick google brings up the following article stating that Iraq is part of a larger plan, which pre-dates 9-11. Emphasis added by me of course.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
source article. If you don't believe me, why not google "PNAC" and look it up yourself, it's no big secret. They even have an offical website.
Come on, this argument is getting really old. There is no solid evidence that the United States is in Iraq because of oil.
Excuse me? Have you been living under a rock? The first locations in the country to be secured were the oil fields, which started production almost imediately. I know a couple of UK paratroopers who were amoung those who siezed them. One has already left because he "signed up for queen and country, not conquering oil supplies". Today it is announced that recent attacks have cost the Iraqi oil industry $6.25bn. WTF? They don't even have a government, but we've managed to set up a whole oil industry where "$6.25bn" is considered an operating loss?
Also, plans for invading Iraq by the current US government predate 9-11. Those plans don't mention democracy. They do mention Amercias strategic goals for the next (or New) American Century.
The touted reasons for Iraq have been beaten down in countless arguments already. 9-11, WMD heard it all before and it was called out as lies at the time. Now we are there "for democracy" apparently. I can think of far better and infinately more pressing and currently relevant places to start if that's the real goal. Or we could just make billions and billions of dollars for Harliburton and Rummies defence companies.
The oil justification is the only reason that there is evidence for!!
The collateral damage issue is interesting. It seems to me that US forces already tries to avoid collateral damage.
The topic is about needing better propaganda, and yet we are using terms like "collateral damage" and "smart-bombs". Looks to me like the existing propaganda is working just fine.
You might also note that US forces tends to avoid friendly fire too.
Has any other army ever done otherwise? Friendly fire is a part of war and always has been. Friendly fire is not civilian deaths; it's only used for allied combatants.
I'm curious as to why you seem to think US forces do not attempt avoiding the situation.
I don't think anyone is. The troops are doing the best they can and responding to the environment they are placed in. Nothing that's happened in Iraq is unusual or undocumented from prior wars.
What is more worrying is that you seem to put across the attitude that you believe that Americans are somehow superiour to everyone else. Torture is rare, friendly fire is avoided and "collateral damage" is minimal. This is a very dangerous view to hold and is part of the problem. Most Americans assume that no one has a genuine gripe against them as that could not be possible, we are the good guys etc etc. You need to realise that your leaders and troops are capable of the same shit as everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, some people in poor communities spit out little miracles like their is no tomorrow. Thunk. Thunk. So this argument could go either way.
It is a bad thing. We've lost the filter aspect of evolution. Sure, the genes are changing, but it's no longer survival of the fittest. Say 100 years ago disease X killed all carriers of the defective gene before they could breed. With modern medicine, they can live a full life. The side-effect is that if they then have children, the defective gene gets passed down. Given enough generations, every one will be carrying it eventually. This doesn't count for fatal diseases, for example I believe that in 100 years or so everyone will have poor eyesight. It's so easy to rectify, so the poorly-sighted hunter/gatherers no longer go hungry.
What's the solution? Give up medicine all together? Cull the weak? Ban genenicly deficient people from having children? Somehow, everything that might solve this is infinately worse than the problem itself. I guess we'll just need to get used to depending on medicine as a race in order to continue.
No. The fundamental problem was that the people you were fighting for weren't really on your side. Vietnam was an extension of the cold war; a war by proxy. No one had WMD and it wasn't "for freedom and democracy". It was simply "we don't like the communists". You never knew who the enemy was, the local population had no clear allegencies. It was an insurgency style of warfare, similar to what's happening in Iraq, hit and run attacks, booby traps. Numbers only really count in regular battlefield conflicts or for holding ground. Vietnam was the first (IIRC) US war where holding ground was actually a disadvantage. They knew exactly where you where, but you didn't even know who, let alone where the enemy was. Vietnam was unwillable. Unfortunately I believe Iraq is in exactly the same situation.
Yet they pulled it off. At the time, the british army was 'the best funded and best trained army in the world.'
Good point. However, times are very different. Back then it was swords and muskets. The people had similar weaponry. Not the case now. I don't know the fine-print, but from what I understand you are very limited in terms of automatic rifles. No full auto, surpressor. You'll be fighting a force that has night-vision and excellent comms. You don't stand a chance if it came down to a US Civil War. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of arms among the population. I'd imagine that most were pistols, almost completely useless in a civil war against troops with body armour and M4s.
Well than i really hope your dictator decides to resign when the masses don't like him
Just where the hell do you think I live? :-) Are you one of these people who believes that the US is the only country with democracy and freedom? Jeez, you guys ripped us Brits off on most of these, you've government is practically a carbon-copy of the UK parliment. Our Bill Of Rights equivalent is something like 600 years old. You also still seem to believe that you have more freedom than us. You don't. You only have the right to bear arms; otherwise Europe is way ahead of you. We didn't have separate toilets for "colored" just 40 years ago, remember that fact. For a large part of the US population, freedom is a novelty. You ought to get out more and take a look at the rest of the world. It might surprise you.
US freedom is largly based around Christian values. Homesexual activity is unacceptable in many places, you can't smoke a joint legally, gambling I've mentioned already. Freedom of speach is limited to specified "freedom zones" and if you speak out agains a company you better have deep pockets and good lawyers. Any other freedom can be easilly suspended with one simple phrase: 9-11.
Besides, that wasn't my point. All I was saying there that the "well maintained milita" is irrelevant in a modern country. The News Media does just the same job nowadays.
Fine, name one that hasn't. Could any old citizen own a gun in Saddam's Iraq?
I believe they could. Thanks for providing me with the counter-example.
If the only consequence is that some people would be upset, do you really think that would stop them?
Yes. It's supposed to be "democracy", remember? Even if you discount the political power of groups like the NRA, most Americans would not be happy to see that right vanish. Personally, I'd rather they defended the other rights you (and us) are losing.
No we haven't. No one is, ever. You really should come over here and take a look. I don't know what world you think we live in, but we don't think about America every waking minute. There is nothing freedom-wise that you have that we don't. Except arms, but that's not much of a freedom IMHO. I'd rather have the freedom to be safe from crack-heads. But that's a different argument that we really should avoid.
Honestly, we are just as free as you. If you put a side the "we are the free-est!" propaganda you have grown up with and take a look at the worlds laws, you will see the truth that is used to blind you. Patriotism. I hope the irony is not lost on you. By unquestioningly accepting your system as being the best, you can be abused without complaint and don't even realise it.
Oh, and gambling is legal most places in the US now. (Big fucking deal, the freedom to pour money down the drain.)
Gambling reflects PERSONAL FREEDOM. As in, a group cannot make an activity illegal because it is morally questionable to them. That's the definition of freedom; the ability to perform unpopular activities or express unpopular views. The moment you start legislating based on morality rather than things like damage to society, then things are pretty messed up.
You seriously think the US population could overthrow their government, given even 90% armed public support? "A well regulated milita" maybe, but a bunch of disorganized civilians against the best funded and best trained army in the world?
This is an illusionary right. It hasn't made sense for about 100 years. Try and exercise it, and they'll Waco your ass.
(I'm not sayinging it's a dictatorship; 90% public support against the adminstration would force resignations etc. It's just the armed part of the revolt that's outdated)
Also note that each and every repressive government disarms its citizens as one of its first actions. Again, do research some history.
EVERY one? Hardly. And the US government would take away your guns if they thought they'd get away with it. You know it and I know it; the only reason they can't and never will is because the right to bear arms is so engrained in the american belief system.
I'd bet you money that we are more free than you, but gambling isn't allowed in the USA. Some biblical/moral reason I believe. Next you'll be telling me that you are outlawing abortion or something.
There is more to freedom than guns. If anything, guns are anti-freedom. Someone with a gun pointed at them has NO freedom whatsoever. We've had most of the rights you think you invented for longer than your country has existed. Granted they are being removed now, but you are coming along for the ride it seems, we are riding shotgun on this one...
Absolutely. Most religions ban this practice, including Christianity. However, this part of the bible was conviently forgotten about many centuries ago.
Some Islamic cultures still observe the "no-interest" laws and provide loans and mortgages that all your to work around it without consigning your soul to eternal hellfire and damnation.
Am I the only one concerned that those who believe in the Rapture are currently in the position to make it happen? Bush and Blair have now both admitted to "seeking the advice of God" when choosing to invade another country. They also believe that when the end comes, the rightous will accend to heaven and all will be good. All this can be theirs if they just push the world into WW3. Personally, I don't think anyone who believes in the afterlife should be allowed to send soldiers to their death. People who believe in eternal life just don't value real life enough.
By the way, the same applies to all religions that exhibit violent behaviour. The three big religious brands are just as bad as each other. They all teach that their sect is superiour to others, and that the godless ones must be converted at all costs. Some even specifically mention other religions and place their believers as being worth less than cattle.
Religion is evolutionary. The peaceful ones were gobbled up years ago by the monopolists that now control the market. Does the vatican issue shares? I want a piece of that action...
Yes, but we do know that they reference other events that allow us to determine the earliest point that they could have possibly been written. That's where the 50 years figure came from, though I remember reading it as 80. What's 30 years when we are talking legends and chinese whispers...
their actual source materials may have been written long before that, likely when Jesus was still alive.
That's just wishful thinking from someone who wants to believe, without even a shred of evidence. The four gospels were clearly copied from each other; each "expands" on the former.
We have manuscripts from the early seconds century onward, so we can establish the textual history of the new testament to a greater degree of certainty than any other historic document collection.
Archive.org has many pages from the earliest days of the internet. As the content is very old, it MUST be true.
The compositional history of the gospels is a very complicated thing, in case you were wondering ;-).
No it's not; it's just those who choose to ignore the facts and "teach the controversy". The controversy that is ALWAYS missed out is that most religions that predate Christianity consist of most of the same core "facts", such as the virgin birth, the great flood, martydom, yadda yadda yadda.
The absense of a bounce report in your logs shows nothing. All that your PGP signing does is ensures that the person on the other end cannot change your emails, or produce new entirely fake ones. It is something, but it's still heresay as far as a court will see it, unless the other person has the same messages, they can't don't prove anything.
How's this for comprehensibilty?:
I could fake a mail from you to Saddam Hussain stating that you would like to assasinate one of your political leaders for one hundred billion dollars. (hello to the security people now joining us, calm down, it's just an example). This email chain has dates and times.
Now, try and prove to me the following: a) you didn't write it at all, b) it is exactly as first sent, c) the message was never sent in the first place.
Computer logs are even less reliable than eyewitnesses. And eyewitnesses are pretty unreliable as well...as any lawyer/judge/cop.
You know, there is a lot more evidence and logical arguments for this outside of my post. You can't base the argument on what I wrote; I'm just some guy on the internet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a hippy liberal apparently (according to some replies to my posts). However, there are some limits as clearly many people just aren't capable or in the position to make a sensible opinion on what they ingest for kicks. If banning is the way were are to tackle these problems, then so be it. I tend towards education and regulation, something banning does nothing for.
Yes. What's he going to do? Fight back for minimum wage? Hardly. If you have nothing to hide (can't believe I used that cliche), you aren't going to get in trouble if the cops come. You are an honest citizen and you wanted your identification back. Ask the assistant under which law they believe they can take your license and when you point out it's bogus, warn them that you are about to take it off them. If they continue to be a jerk, just take it off them using minimum force. There is NOTHING stopping them noting your name and address, they do not need to keep your license.
Isn't it an offence to drive in the US without a license on you at all times? Surely no civilian has the right to keep whatever identity papers you use. In most countries, passports, driving licenses etc remain the property of the government at all times.
Yes, essentially it did stop them. They used to be large barns/warehouses buying the precursers in in bulk and producing large high quality batches. The addition rate for meth follows the purity of the drug. Once the supply chain was locked down all that was left was the kitchen labs. The usage dropped significantly, especially with the poor quality crap made from crushed cough medicine pills.
Banning the precursor has worked for several drugs, some of which you won't have heard of because of the success. The only reason these cold and flu remedies weren't banned outright is because of the drug industry bribery to politicians.
PBS's Frontline did a good documentary on the topic; worth a look.
Exactly. Most spam comes from where the home-user computers are. The problem is so bad M$ included a connection-rate limiter in XP2 to limit the amount of new connections created in X seconds.
Spam isn't racist or nationalist, like many of us are.
There is one huge advantage in this for them; The Great Firewall turns from being a blacklist to a whitelist. Instead of blocking sites based on reports or automatic scanning of content, allowed sites would have to be enabled on the Chinese DNS system. Their DNS would know to delegate to the global DNS system for those domains, meaning transparent connectivity to the remainder of the internet. Where permitted.
The rest of the world could mess with this by replacing web links with IPs. However that isn't going to happen unless DNS gets really broken. BUT....in world politics, showing face is important. Depending on a foreign power for DNS isn't appealing to most countries, especially when the current maintainer has been acting a little differently lately. Europe has made requests to be more involved in the management of the system, largely for the same reason.
I often defend China on the intarwebs. It's an amazing culture going back 3,000 years. Unfortunately some people like Mao made some really bad calls with regard to the betterment of their population. This is only recent history. The Chinese are a strong nation and it is generally agreed upon that as a nation they are going to become increasingly a larger player in world affairs. Like the US of old, they are very insular. This is changing as a result of the world changing via technologies such as the internet and increasing world trade and commericialisation. China has special economic zones that are essentially capitalist. They cannot censor the internet, it's simply not possible to a) monitor it all or b) stay ahead of disident techniques. This war will have many casualties in terms of students getting locked up and the like, but I honestly do believe that the Chinese people of 2016 will be very different to the current ones. The whole totalatarism thing is played out over there. It's our turn now.
It's not. The domination of space has been on the Project for a New American Centuries list of objectives for a long time. They wish to control space for the strategic and ecconomic betterment of the USA. It's on their website and in many of their publications. For a group which wishes to take over the world, they are surprisingly open. Oh, in case you don't know who they are, the PNAC is essentially the upper echelons of the current US administration; Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Prior to being elected, the group were just another Washington think-tank. Now they run the show.
Everybody isn't gonna just start getting along, it doesn't make a bit of sense not to protect ourselves.
Yes and no. Eisnehower warned against the dangers of increasing military spending and the wag-the-dog syndrome it brings. Star Wars is not a credible defence program. Who is it defending from? Is China going to nuke it's biggest trading partner then be nuked back into the stone age? Hardly. Star Wars is an offensive program with the intention of being able to destroy any space assets where the outcome is profitable to the United States.
They also seek to control the internet in the exact same way. The following is from their 2000 report. That's right, 19 months prior to the event that supposedly "changed everything". If you ask me, s/changed/enabled/g on that quote. Anyway, here are their stated goals, emphasis added by me for the "stuff that matters":
Apparently their demand for one hundred billion dollars is in the post...
Bad analogy. Your home media centre doesn't need to be portable. Convergence works for portable items, as you get more functionality per ounce. You might carry a phone, a pda, and a mp3 player. I don't.
The really sad part, though, is that the developers can't even secure something as simple as a damn phone.
I'd take this discussion with a pinch of salt. There are several companies selling anti-virus solutions for the Pocket PC platform which I use. Small problem...there aren't any viruses except for one "proof of concept" which is basically a program that copies itself. Wow. I'd love to see what their virus signatures are looking for.
Just because people are selling software, it doesn't mean it's required. Winfixer anyone?
It does make far more money. There are several reasons why the industry might want to release at different times in different areas. Film reels are very expensive and the reels from e.g. the US opening weekend will get sent on to Europe for showing there. Remember that most boxoffice sales are in the first couple of weeks from the opening, after that the number of screens showing the movie drops considerably.
Another thought is promotion. At the simplest level, the money made from the US weekend can go into advertising elsewhere. If the film flops in the US, it might not even get released elsewhere. Also, the stars of the film tend to go on TV to promote the movie. They can only be in one country at a time.
I was an early DVD adopter and there was a period when I was importing US disks several weeks before cinematic release over here. This happened mostly because of the aforementioned release stagger, but also because DVD releases were out sooner to promote the format early on. It's not so common now.
Recently a movie was released in DVD retail and the box office on the same day; a possible sign of things changing. Unfortunately the cinemas went apeshit at this possible attack on their business model and many refused to show it over this simple issue.
I have a few music DVDs with 5.1 soundtracks. On some it's exactly the gimic you describe, just a remix over four channels. However, there are some in which it is very well done, mostly live stuff where the spacial information is real, or something that was created with surround in mind.
The same source as it gets it from on TV, VHS and DVD. As the grandparent says, pro-logic is encoded using a phase shift, that's all there is to it. You can record it to any audio media provided it's a reasonable fidelity. It's not perfect, the rear channels have a limited frequency range, and the sound isn't 100% discrete like 5.1 is.
The two-channel feed on most DVDs is usually pro-logic encoded. However, part of the DVD specification calls for a 5.1 downmixer that can take the 5.1 audio, encode using pro-logic, then output over the left and right channel. If you have your DVD player just hooked up to your TV (non 5.1), then this is exactly what you have. If it's a pro-logic TV, it will work as intended.
You can get a similar effect with two speakers. If the left channel is exactly out of phase with the right, the sound does not appear to come from the speakers but instead lacks direction. If they are in phase, it sounds as if it's coming from the middle. Providided you are in the "sweet spot" of the speakers this is.
The really really clever bit is that pro-logic uses the exact same phase shift. So you can actually play non-prologic media and get a relatively acurate effect. Not something you'd want to do with music, but live concerts work well. The crowd noise does actually come out of the rear speakers.
The centre in pro-logic is simply all of the audio that is present on both the L-R channel and in-phase.
How is that a logical argument? And do you think that any leader of Iraq would be able to reclaim the oil for the Iraq people? A few leaders have done this in the past. Che Guevara. Fidel Castro. The moment they turned their backs on the businessmen and turned to their people, they are history. The oil contracts in Iraq will not be changing hands any time soon.
The US does not fight for democracy any more. I suggest you pick up a history book. One of the CIA's largest functions for the past 30 years or so has been the subverting democratic elections around the world. Mostly South America though. These interventions range from simple funding of the opposing party (even if they are genocidal), through to arming, training and operational support for uprisings (even if they are genocidal). This isn't tin-foil hat stuff, it's documented history now.
The most obvious reason for taking the oil fields is to attempt to make them secure so Iraq can use them to fund their new economy.
Granted, that's a perfectly sound argument, especially as you point out the Kuwait oil fires years ago. Wouldn't the hospitals and schools have also been a wise choice? The distribution of forces in Iraq did not have the welfare of the Iraqi people in mind. The oil was flowing out of the country long before many residents had water and electricity. Those last two are pretty key for maintaining an economy, agreed? They wanted an economy sure, but not for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Take off your tin foil hat and find a new hobby.
You really think this is a paranoid fantasy? Have you looked at the billions of dollars that have been flowing around, and where they are going? Aren't you in the slightest bit worried that your politicans might have other interests in mind than Iraqi democracy? A quick google brings up the following article stating that Iraq is part of a larger plan, which pre-dates 9-11. Emphasis added by me of course.
source article. If you don't believe me, why not google "PNAC" and look it up yourself, it's no big secret. They even have an offical website.
Excuse me? Have you been living under a rock? The first locations in the country to be secured were the oil fields, which started production almost imediately. I know a couple of UK paratroopers who were amoung those who siezed them. One has already left because he "signed up for queen and country, not conquering oil supplies". Today it is announced that recent attacks have cost the Iraqi oil industry $6.25bn. WTF? They don't even have a government, but we've managed to set up a whole oil industry where "$6.25bn" is considered an operating loss?
Also, plans for invading Iraq by the current US government predate 9-11. Those plans don't mention democracy. They do mention Amercias strategic goals for the next (or New) American Century.
The touted reasons for Iraq have been beaten down in countless arguments already. 9-11, WMD heard it all before and it was called out as lies at the time. Now we are there "for democracy" apparently. I can think of far better and infinately more pressing and currently relevant places to start if that's the real goal. Or we could just make billions and billions of dollars for Harliburton and Rummies defence companies.
The oil justification is the only reason that there is evidence for!!
The topic is about needing better propaganda, and yet we are using terms like "collateral damage" and "smart-bombs". Looks to me like the existing propaganda is working just fine.
You might also note that US forces tends to avoid friendly fire too.
Has any other army ever done otherwise? Friendly fire is a part of war and always has been. Friendly fire is not civilian deaths; it's only used for allied combatants.
I'm curious as to why you seem to think US forces do not attempt avoiding the situation.
I don't think anyone is. The troops are doing the best they can and responding to the environment they are placed in. Nothing that's happened in Iraq is unusual or undocumented from prior wars.
What is more worrying is that you seem to put across the attitude that you believe that Americans are somehow superiour to everyone else. Torture is rare, friendly fire is avoided and "collateral damage" is minimal. This is a very dangerous view to hold and is part of the problem. Most Americans assume that no one has a genuine gripe against them as that could not be possible, we are the good guys etc etc. You need to realise that your leaders and troops are capable of the same shit as everyone else.