Ha ha, I knew all my FPS-gaming experience would come in handy some day! With all those (future) robots fighting eachothers the emphasis must be om what country that has the best l33T gamers to blow away the enemy. And as far as I can tell, South-Korea is a nation of gamers.
In the meantime, let's practice battlefield 2.;-)
> It has been noted that serial killers often torture animals in their younger years. Ignoring Iraq in light of Afghanistan would be akin to not dealing with a child found torturing animals and expecting him to become a healthy member of society.
It has also been noted that people that are unable to put themselves in other peoples' situation lack empathy, and further that people who lack empathy have a tendency to become psychopaths....and USA is acting kinda like a psychopatic right now.
Bush did lie, ask anyone. He repeated several hundred times that Saddam had WMD. Check any newsarchive you want to. The message was CLEAR and FIRM, and not to misunderstand. If he said this on a basis of educated guess, then that's his problem. He still told the world that Saddam had WMD and means to deliver them. Saddam had none.
> The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but he can be used. There was no link, NOMATTER who was who's enemy.
> Typically you only attack someone when you envy what they have.
How many times have I heard an american use this argument?! Countless! If anyone likes or dislikes America, it's not because of what America has. It's because of what America DOES. Some people dont like what you do (lie and invade other countries) while others like it (democracy, financial aid etc.) While others - like me - like some and hate some.
It's sad to see that someone still believes that Bush did not lie. He told the rest of the world that Iraq had WMD and the means to deliver them to other countries. That Saddam was a threat that had to be taken out. Further Saddam hated the religious Al-Qaida as he saw religion as a threat to his power. There was NO 9/11-link.
By your "terrorist"-logic, there was a connection between USA and Iraq since Iraq financed palestinian suicide-bombers, while USA financed Israel with money, planes and guns so that the Israel-army could terrorise the civilan palestinian population.
> Considering Iraq was one of the few governments that embraced the 9/11 attacks Come on! You invaded his country, bombed it, blocaded it etc. You expect him to cry when americans finaly see that you can't fuck around with everybody without consequences?
Take a look at Wikipedia's entry on race and intelligence.
I looked and have some thoughts:
I am not a genuis when it comes to research methology, but isn't testing of the US' population bound to get it wrong? I'm thinking emmigration patterns etc. and the fact that US to a much bigger degree gives citizenship to smart and educated people. What white people immigrated from europe? Smart or dumb? What kind of people immigrated from Asia? The smartest? The blacks were just kidnapped, so there ought to be just "average" intelligence among them. And how about hispanic? Any "brain-drain" that benefits US there?
This could mean that the results from a study of the US' population cannot be generalised to the rest of the world, simple because the test-groups are not true representatives (random) of either "races" in general. The test-population does not reflect the population which it is generalised to.
Rather, the test just gives the difference among U.S. citizens, and therefore gives no real insight in race-intellingece.
Of the married people I know, about 95% of the women are 'in charge.' Maybe the guys walk around and think they are running the show, but when it comes down to it, it is typically the woman.
All a woman needs to do in order to win a discussion or argument is to start crying. You just can't compete with that!
wow, I agree with you and just before I read your post, I posted this:
----
The next service from Google may be a "friendster" kind of thing. Why? Because:
1. Who did you give\receive your first gmail-invites from? Ah, not a close friend?
2. As you got more and more gmail-invites, did you not increasingly give invites to other (less close) friends?
Ok, it's a wild guess, but I guess the invitation-information may not only be a media-stunt and for beta-testing...
1. Invasion of Iraq. This is really besides the point of the origianl post, so let's not discuss it. Let's just say I'm still waiting on the WMD and disagree with your arguments. BTW, your reference to nazi-germany is hilarious. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq-situation.
2. My hatred against USA. This must be your biased emotions, because I do not hate USA. It's not black or white. I like USA for many reasons and don't like it for other reasons, like the Iraq-war. In many ways it's like critizising a friend. I'll give my honest input on what I like and don't like. And I don't like being lied to and seeing the innocent being killed in Iraq for oil.
3. Invading for democracy. You're a firework of strange arguments, historic references and pro-US logic, and are obviously putting too much into my arguments. Seems like you are trying to pull another black or white-angle. Like there are only two choices: War or doing nothing. You want reform within a tyrannic regime by pressuring it, not by invading it. In time, there will be democracy. This is what has happened in almost every country that have turned democratic the last years. You don't need to gun down your oppenents, you can persvade them to change. If invasion for democracy is so good, why havent USA invaded 90% of Africa?
4. Moral relativist. Are you saying that woman wasn't allowed to work in Iraq? At this point perhaps I should mention that I'm for that people should be free etc. But you missed my point. Arguing that there are more "bad apples" in Iraq because of car bombings are just plain wrong. Thats the average Iraqi resisting the occupation. My point stands. Noone likes to be invaded, and ANY population would resist it, regardless of culture, religion etc. Thus, making acts of resistance subject to the "bad apple" category is nothing but false.
6. I recommend you to read some foreign newspapers. It will help with your black'n'white logic. And I'll try reading some American ones.
PS: It's now 21:00 in Norway, so don't expect more answers for about 18 hours.
No, THAT'S naive. If that's the case, then all the libs are wrong when they call Iraq a quagmire and assert that things are getting worse there all the time. I mean, according to your "logic," people are people with the same percentage of bad apples all around, right? So we should be having the same number of suicide bombers, roadside bombs, car bombs, mullahs gathering armed anti-American crowds in the streets, here in America as they do in Iraq
USA illegally invaded another country and aspect to be treated good? Like americans wouldn't have done the same thing if invaded and defeated by a country in the middle east or whatever. Ofcourse they fight back! They want their freedom and security back.
Try turning on the news; it won't take long before some of America's bad apples are showed. Car bombs used in a war is one thing, drive-by-shooting during peacetime is another. In many ways, your logic is nothing but a rotten apple. Take a bite.
As far as I can tell, when over 50% of the percentage of email sent is spam, the gloves are off. It is costing billions of dollars to businesses that have to deal with all this spam. I don't want anyone inicent to get hurt, but surely you can track down the ones who sent you spam?
If someone innocent is used to send spam, at least a DDOS will make them aware of that their email-server is being abused?
I'm tired of spam, and I can't say that I care whatsoever for the spammers or those who are used by the spammers to spam. Anyone who owns a machine that has been hijacked is responsible for that computer's low security, and thus deserves to pay for inflicting damage to other people on the internet.
Further, since there really isn't any other good solutions to spam, I kinda feel that this is an efficient way to cripple those spam-bastards.
That remind me that I once wrote an article in my student newspaper about "freaky" experiences of paramedics. I stole the text from an american site. Oh man, did people like to read it.:-)
Try googeling for the original site, I had a really good time reading stories on some websites.
http://www.thelunatick.com/ems/strange.html
something like this, I think.
"Rules" and ideas of what terrorism is, may be hard to define or agree about. I have a different approach: Focus on the consequences.
Laws, rules, principles and ideas are really nothing more than things we think about, not anything real you can touch. You can however, touch concequences, because they're real.
(I'll use children as an example of victim). If children die because of bombing, it's terror. If children die because of soldiers shooting, it's terror. If children die because an american blocade of the country blocks medicine to enter, it's terror. If children die, because there's a shortage of doctors because of war, it's terror, and the people behind the war is responsible.
Mainly, the method of killing is not so interesting, it's the fact the people actually die that's important.
...and now the discussion begins about what kind of victims that should be included in "terror-victim" group. e.g. should civilians that're driven into defending themselfes count? etc.
PS: What about concequences that lead to death that couldn't been foreseen? Hint: What's the concequence?
I'm a copy of my brother. As an identical twin, the cloning-debate seems strange to me. Much fuzz about nothing. Cloning, so what? Having an identical person is not bad for either person. Insted, you can do cool partytricks!
If I'm downloaded, I'll pay extra for my virtual copy to be loaded into a world with 1.000.000 female virgins and no men. Yeah, and free boose.
>I figure that the only reason Bush used the WMD argument for going into Iraq was because that was what the Europeans would go for.
NEWSFLASH! The Europeans did NOT believe USA's arguments, and warned USA (as a good allie) that invading Iraq would be wrong.
Next time listen to your allies. We do actually wish you well.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha, I knew all my FPS-gaming experience would come in handy some day! With all those (future) robots fighting eachothers the emphasis must be om what country that has the best l33T gamers to blow away the enemy. And as far as I can tell, South-Korea is a nation of gamers. ;-)
In the meantime, let's practice battlefield 2.
> It has been noted that serial killers often torture animals in their younger years. Ignoring Iraq in light of Afghanistan would be akin to not dealing with a child found torturing animals and expecting him to become a healthy member of society.
...and USA is acting kinda like a psychopatic right now.
It has also been noted that people that are unable to put themselves in other peoples' situation lack empathy, and further that people who lack empathy have a tendency to become psychopaths.
Bush did lie, ask anyone. He repeated several hundred times that Saddam had WMD. Check any newsarchive you want to. The message was CLEAR and FIRM, and not to misunderstand. If he said this on a basis of educated guess, then that's his problem. He still told the world that Saddam had WMD and means to deliver them. Saddam had none.
> The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but he can be used.
There was no link, NOMATTER who was who's enemy.
> Typically you only attack someone when you envy what they have.
How many times have I heard an american use this argument?! Countless! If anyone likes or dislikes America, it's not because of what America has. It's because of what America DOES. Some people dont like what you do (lie and invade other countries) while others like it (democracy, financial aid etc.) While others - like me - like some and hate some.
It's sad to see that someone still believes that Bush did not lie. He told the rest of the world that Iraq had WMD and the means to deliver them to other countries. That Saddam was a threat that had to be taken out. Further Saddam hated the religious Al-Qaida as he saw religion as a threat to his power. There was NO 9/11-link.
By your "terrorist"-logic, there was a connection between USA and Iraq since Iraq financed palestinian suicide-bombers, while USA financed Israel with money, planes and guns so that the Israel-army could terrorise the civilan palestinian population.
> Considering Iraq was one of the few governments that embraced the 9/11 attacks
Come on! You invaded his country, bombed it, blocaded it etc. You expect him to cry when americans finaly see that you can't fuck around with everybody without consequences?
You cannot excuse the wrongdoing of Americans by saying that other people elsewhere were worse than the Americans.
And for Abu Ghraib: The pictures said more than a 1000 words.
I have an eye that is severely damaged. I'd love to "heal" it through this kind of therapy.
Think of the possibilites for people with spinal injuries or people who have lost limbs in accidents!
If only superman was alive...
Take a look at Wikipedia's entry on race and intelligence.
I looked and have some thoughts:
I am not a genuis when it comes to research methology, but isn't testing of the US' population bound to get it wrong? I'm thinking emmigration patterns etc. and the fact that US to a much bigger degree gives citizenship to smart and educated people.
What white people immigrated from europe? Smart or dumb? What kind of people immigrated from Asia? The smartest? The blacks were just kidnapped, so there ought to be just "average" intelligence among them. And how about hispanic? Any "brain-drain" that benefits US there?
This could mean that the results from a study of the US' population cannot be generalised to the rest of the world, simple because the test-groups are not true representatives (random) of either "races" in general. The test-population does not reflect the population which it is generalised to. Rather, the test just gives the difference among U.S. citizens, and therefore gives no real insight in race-intellingece.
Ps: Me = white
Of the married people I know, about 95% of the women are 'in charge.' Maybe the guys walk around and think they are running the show, but when it comes down to it, it is typically the woman.
All a woman needs to do in order to win a discussion or argument is to start crying. You just can't compete with that!
wow, I agree with you and just before I read your post, I posted this:
----
The next service from Google may be a "friendster" kind of thing. Why? Because:
1. Who did you give\receive your first gmail-invites from? Ah, not a close friend?
2. As you got more and more gmail-invites, did you not increasingly give invites to other (less close) friends?
Ok, it's a wild guess, but I guess the invitation-information may not only be a media-stunt and for beta-testing...
The next service from Google may be a "friendster" kind of thing. Why? Because:
1. Who did you give\receive your first gmail-invites from? Ah, not a close friend?
2. As you got more and more gmail-invites, did you not increasingly give invites to other (less close) friends?
Ok, it's a wild guess, but I guess the invitation-information may not only be a media-stunt and for beta-testing...
Useful info: Not being able to empathise with other people's suffering is one (among others) sign of being a psycopath (medical term).
Good luck with that.
Is this murder going to trigger a wave of "you-need-protection-and-security"-spam? Buy it now before you get popped!
----------
Spamming reduces company profits, which reduces tax income, which reduces social spendings, which reduce quality of life for the poor.
>Mr McKinnon, an unemployed computer systems administrator, is known on the internet as "Solo".
He is able to hack into many of the most secure systems in the world, but not able to hold a IT-job?
Maybe the US government should punish him by making him do IT security for them for 10 years, he-he.
Firstly, thank you for your long answer.
1. Invasion of Iraq. This is really besides the point of the origianl post, so let's not discuss it. Let's just say I'm still waiting on the WMD and disagree with your arguments. BTW, your reference to nazi-germany is hilarious. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq-situation.
2. My hatred against USA. This must be your biased emotions, because I do not hate USA. It's not black or white. I like USA for many reasons and don't like it for other reasons, like the Iraq-war. In many ways it's like critizising a friend. I'll give my honest input on what I like and don't like. And I don't like being lied to and seeing the innocent being killed in Iraq for oil.
3. Invading for democracy. You're a firework of strange arguments, historic references and pro-US logic, and are obviously putting too much into my arguments. Seems like you are trying to pull another black or white-angle. Like there are only two choices: War or doing nothing. You want reform within a tyrannic regime by pressuring it, not by invading it. In time, there will be democracy. This is what has happened in almost every country that have turned democratic the last years. You don't need to gun down your oppenents, you can persvade them to change. If invasion for democracy is so good, why havent USA invaded 90% of Africa?
4. Moral relativist. Are you saying that woman wasn't allowed to work in Iraq? At this point perhaps I should mention that I'm for that people should be free etc. But you missed my point. Arguing that there are more "bad apples" in Iraq because of car bombings are just plain wrong. Thats the average Iraqi resisting the occupation. My point stands. Noone likes to be invaded, and ANY population would resist it, regardless of culture, religion etc. Thus, making acts of resistance subject to the "bad apple" category is nothing but false.
6. I recommend you to read some foreign newspapers. It will help with your black'n'white logic. And I'll try reading some American ones.
PS: It's now 21:00 in Norway, so don't expect more answers for about 18 hours.
No, THAT'S naive. If that's the case, then all the libs are wrong when they call Iraq a quagmire and assert that things are getting worse there all the time. I mean, according to your "logic," people are people with the same percentage of bad apples all around, right? So we should be having the same number of suicide bombers, roadside bombs, car bombs, mullahs gathering armed anti-American crowds in the streets, here in America as they do in Iraq
USA illegally invaded another country and aspect to be treated good? Like americans wouldn't have done the same thing if invaded and defeated by a country in the middle east or whatever. Ofcourse they fight back! They want their freedom and security back.
Try turning on the news; it won't take long before some of America's bad apples are showed. Car bombs used in a war is one thing, drive-by-shooting during peacetime is another. In many ways, your logic is nothing but a rotten apple. Take a bite.
As far as I can tell, when over 50% of the percentage of email sent is spam, the gloves are off. It is costing billions of dollars to businesses that have to deal with all this spam. I don't want anyone inicent to get hurt, but surely you can track down the ones who sent you spam?
If someone innocent is used to send spam, at least a DDOS will make them aware of that their email-server is being abused?
I'm tired of spam, and I can't say that I care whatsoever for the spammers or those who are used by the spammers to spam. Anyone who owns a machine that has been hijacked is responsible for that computer's low security, and thus deserves to pay for inflicting damage to other people on the internet.
Further, since there really isn't any other good solutions to spam, I kinda feel that this is an efficient way to cripple those spam-bastards.
That remind me that I once wrote an article in my student newspaper about "freaky" experiences of paramedics. I stole the text from an american site. Oh man, did people like to read it. :-)
Try googeling for the original site, I had a really good time reading stories on some websites.
http://www.thelunatick.com/ems/strange.html
something like this, I think.
"Rules" and ideas of what terrorism is, may be hard to define or agree about. I have a different approach: Focus on the consequences.
...and now the discussion begins about what kind of victims that should be included in "terror-victim" group. e.g. should civilians that're driven into defending themselfes count? etc.
Laws, rules, principles and ideas are really nothing more than things we think about, not anything real you can touch. You can however, touch concequences, because they're real.
(I'll use children as an example of victim).
If children die because of bombing, it's terror. If children die because of soldiers shooting, it's terror. If children die because an american blocade of the country blocks medicine to enter, it's terror. If children die, because there's a shortage of doctors because of war, it's terror, and the people behind the war is responsible.
Mainly, the method of killing is not so interesting, it's the fact the people actually die that's important.
PS: What about concequences that lead to death that couldn't been foreseen? Hint: What's the concequence?
Maggern - Norway
I'm a copy of my brother. As an identical twin, the cloning-debate seems strange to me. Much fuzz about nothing. Cloning, so what? Having an identical person is not bad for either person. Insted, you can do cool partytricks!
If I'm downloaded, I'll pay extra for my virtual copy to be loaded into a world with 1.000.000 female virgins and no men. Yeah, and free boose.
>I figure that the only reason Bush used the WMD argument for going into Iraq was because that was what the Europeans would go for.
NEWSFLASH! The Europeans did NOT believe USA's arguments, and warned USA (as a good allie) that invading Iraq would be wrong.
Next time listen to your allies. We do actually wish you well.
And BTW, you're an idiot.
Disagree. I spilt some beer on my keyboard and it went crazy. Tried to dry it, but still no good. Had to use 15$ on a new one.
Beer is at least as dangerous as coke.
In my business studies, I read an article that stated that 9 out of 10 in top management are tall people.
Somehow, being tall is attributed with intelligence and leadership skills. Hence, more respect.
Everyone with an (free) audience is a journalist.
I'm drunk, but I'm right.
Why? Simple, it takes almost as much oil to transport it from the middle east as you can bring over.
Figured that out for yourself, eh? Cause it's plain out dead wrong.
I changed from SETI to World community grid, which works with public problems like cancer and smallpox.
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/