Remember that every piece of science today is based upon someone elses past'research
Um, no. A person's specific contributions and additions are in fact separate from anything they were 'based' on. Noone is trying to copyright Newton's laws, just profit temporarily from their additions. Heck, I bet Newton made a profit off his additions to existing theories.
Re:You are not a very smart person, I take it.
on
Saddam's Inbox Hacked
·
· Score: 0
So I take it you favor castrating all men because some of them rape?
Well, if a convicted serial rapist and known liar suddenly gained the power to rape millions of women in one fell swoop, then yes, I would castrate that man if he refused to give up that power.
And if he didn't yet have that power but really wanted it and was actively pursing it, and after 8 years of him promising to stop and breaking those promises repeatedly, I would most certainly castrate him.
And if part of his original sentence was to not pursue that ability and he broke that condition many times, I would most certainly carry out his deferred sentence!
Re:You are not a very smart person, I take it.
on
Saddam's Inbox Hacked
·
· Score: 0
Well, I just wrote a huge reply to your post, then I opened a freaking shortcut on my desktop and it changed THIS browser instance to that page. So when I hit the back button, the whole fscking response had been wiped. Sonofabitch.
Let me just say I think your point of view on 9/11 is very narrow. 9/11 should have taught us 3 things:
1. Terrorism is an incredibly slippery thing, that once set in motion, there is little we can do to prevent the eventual strike. Instead, we must crush those who foment terrorism before they can hatch their plans. 2. State sponsorship of terrorism multiplies it's strength tenfold. Al Qaeda could never have grown into the large, effective organization it did w/o a host country to leave it in peace to train and plan. The same goes for the original formation of a terrorist, in these Saudi 'Madrases.' There is terrorism all over the world, but only in the Middle East do states actively support it. 2. Finding evidence of terrorist collusion on a specific attack is difficult, MUCH more so when done inside a closed, totalitarian state such as Iraq. 'Connecting the dots' likely won't happen until the final picture is already assembled for us. 3. We cannot predict the behavior of invredibly hateful, irrational men. And remember, the hijackers were NOT insance, they were simply hateful, irrational bastards.
The truth is, America will go in there, with the help of Britian and several other nations, free the Iraqis, and THE CITIZENS themselves with thank us for their freedom. All the peaceniks and doom-and-gloom blame-America-firsters will will be proven wrong yet AGAIN.
As for N. Korea, I believe KJI is an unstable man and you make a good case that he is probably insane, but so far he hasn't tried to invade S. Korea and we haven't found any evidence (that I've seen) of him actually aligning himself with terrorists.
Regardless, I personally think KJI SHOULD be removed and democracy imposed on that country, and I'm convinced Bush agrees with me. The problem right now is our cowardly European 'allies' would rather have their illegal oil shipments and unholy economic alliances than true security and freedom for the people of Iraq. Add their current policies of appeasement and act-never-ism with the FAR more difficult military task of invading N. Korea ( which is likely already nuclear armed), and it would simply be impossible to get the U.N. on board. But of course U.N. consent is only an absolute requirement when a Conservative Republican is in the White House. When Clinton took on Milosevic, that somehow wasn't 'agression,' and an 'exit strategy' was no biggy!
Bush really only has one option now: to kiss European butt on N. Korea long enought to take out Saddam, while trying to build the bast case against N. Korea as he can. And that is what he is doing. It is contradictory, but practical given the cowardice of the left in the Western World.
Hrm, I don't remember iraq having anything to do with that.
Just goes to show you how little the left has learned, and how narrow their view of 9/11 has become.
The lesson of 9/11 was not about just one nation, or one group, it is about the danger of ignoring clear and gathering dangers in this age of uber-fanatics waging asymmetrical warfare. It was about soberly looking at situations and heading them off before they happen, rather than hoping against hope that we'll get really lucky and intercept that nuke before they happen.
Anyway, if we do go to war with iraq, it will be the first unprovoked attack by the United States in its history.
Oh, cry for me. Preemptive attacks are an extremely common occurance throughout history. Are you saying we should wait until a nuke levels New York, then take the attacker out? Of course that is assuming we can the find clear and convincing evidence of exactly which group did it, exactly which state(s) sponsored them, etc. that our French, Russians, Chinese, and American Left always demand before taking action (unless the President is Bill Clinton, then there are no questions asked).
If we're so woried about nuclear terrorism, why don't we go after North Korea, who's leader is actualy insane, and actualy working on nukes.
Hold your horses, dude, Kim Jong Il (sp?) is simply NOT insane, I don't know where you got that. As for your point, he may be a brutal dictator, but he's never (to our knowledge) used chemical weapons on his own people, he doesn't assassinate foreign leaders, he doesn't invade his neighbors every chance he gets, and he doesn't fund Palestinian terrorist or have regular pow-wows with top Al Qaeda and other terrorist functionaries. Also, he at least acts on correct information, unlike Saddam who tends to make terrible strategic mistakes (such as invading Kuwait) purely because his underlings are afraid to give him accurate negative information. Finally, Kim Jong Il does not hate the West on the level Saddams, nor wish it's extinction as a goal, and so lacks the dangerous comminality of purpose with international terrorists.
This situation may change, but for now taking on N. Korea is not in the cards because 1) for the reasons listed above he is not demonstrably unstable or agressive like Saddam, and 2) we are already busy with Saddam. It would be unwise to start even talking about regime change in N. Korea when all our diplomatic energies are already being spent on convincing our 'allies' to go along on Iraq.
As for your implication that only N. Korea and not Iraq is developing nukes, get real, surely you don't believe Saddam kicked out the inspectors so that he could stop his nuclear program. Or DO YOU?
Not *quite*. He was worried about a revolution. If you look at the Civil War and Sherman, you'd notice that the US government wasn't exactly nice to the people opposing it, either. Granted, not genocide...
Of course that was 150 years ago, and generally regarded as wrong, but that won't stop a moral relativist from using that to judge today's leaders.
And this is why Bush is trying to attack...uh...Iraq? When exactly did Iraq attack the United States of America again?
Christ, dude, don't you get it? The whole 9/11 thing? We can wait for the mushroom cloud to appear over New York, or we can take Saddam out now before he hands the nuke to terrorists, or is overthrown by them, or some other unforseen event or alliance. There are a thousand other possibilities, but pretending that you can predict them in this age of unpredictable terrorists, in a backward country like Iraq, with a demonstrably *unwise* dictator like Saddam, is the utmost in arrogant denial.
The only alternative is to keep that situation from ever occurring, and waiting for a smoking gun (or mushroom cloud) is just not possible.
Let's see, Saddam is a brutal dictator who gasses innocents in the name of political terror and genocide, the US is a democracy defending itself and freedom by selectively attacking only those who attacked it first, and in the process bringing freedom to millions.
But I also don't like the fact that in the countries that allow free speech, the biggest megaphones are controlled by only a very small group of companies and individuals.
What drivel! You can choose from ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,FOX,SKY NEWS,BBC, and a few more major news organizations, plus tens of thousands of newspapers, magazines, online publications, etc.! Instead of talking generically about 'potential' abuses by supposedly all-powerful, omnipotent companies, why don't you come up with some actual instances of real abuse.
of course the difference is that the idea of him actually getting to do that (or even that he was remotely seriously) is 0 in America, in China it has happened recently and does in fact happen all the time today.
...for me. I want to just open the darned browser! I don't want to think, "ok, i want this one on 3, this one on 2, where's that other? Oh yeah, it was on 4...no 3 is too crowded, let's to to 1...OK now i'm ready to start the friggin' app!" Desktops hide each running app in a certain desktop so you have to go searching for apps; what's the point, a less 'crunched' taskbar? If that's all you want, just expand it's size.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better, a bidding war between MS / Sony+Phillips.
Remember that every piece of science today is based upon someone elses past'research
Um, no. A person's specific contributions and additions are in fact separate from anything they were 'based' on. Noone is trying to copyright Newton's laws, just profit temporarily from their additions. Heck, I bet Newton made a profit off his additions to existing theories.
So I take it you favor castrating all men because some of them rape?
Well, if a convicted serial rapist and known liar suddenly gained the power to rape millions of women in one fell swoop, then yes, I would castrate that man if he refused to give up that power.
And if he didn't yet have that power but really wanted it and was actively pursing it, and after 8 years of him promising to stop and breaking those promises repeatedly, I would most certainly castrate him.
And if part of his original sentence was to not pursue that ability and he broke that condition many times, I would most certainly carry out his deferred sentence!
Well, I just wrote a huge reply to your post, then I opened a freaking shortcut on my desktop and it changed THIS browser instance to that page. So when I hit the back button, the whole fscking response had been wiped. Sonofabitch.
Let me just say I think your point of view on 9/11 is very narrow. 9/11 should have taught us 3 things:
1. Terrorism is an incredibly slippery thing, that once set in motion, there is little we can do to prevent the eventual strike. Instead, we must crush those who foment terrorism before they can hatch their plans.
2. State sponsorship of terrorism multiplies it's strength tenfold. Al Qaeda could never have grown into the large, effective organization it did w/o a host country to leave it in peace to train and plan. The same goes for the original formation of a terrorist, in these Saudi 'Madrases.' There is terrorism all over the world, but only in the Middle East do states actively support it.
2. Finding evidence of terrorist collusion on a specific attack is difficult, MUCH more so when done inside a closed, totalitarian state such as Iraq. 'Connecting the dots' likely won't happen until the final picture is already assembled for us.
3. We cannot predict the behavior of invredibly hateful, irrational men. And remember, the hijackers were NOT insance, they were simply hateful, irrational bastards.
The truth is, America will go in there, with the help of Britian and several other nations, free the Iraqis, and THE CITIZENS themselves with thank us for their freedom. All the peaceniks and doom-and-gloom blame-America-firsters will will be proven wrong yet AGAIN.
As for N. Korea, I believe KJI is an unstable man and you make a good case that he is probably insane, but so far he hasn't tried to invade S. Korea and we haven't found any evidence (that I've seen) of him actually aligning himself with terrorists.
Regardless, I personally think KJI SHOULD be removed and democracy imposed on that country, and I'm convinced Bush agrees with me. The problem right now is our cowardly European 'allies' would rather have their illegal oil shipments and unholy economic alliances than true security and freedom for the people of Iraq. Add their current policies of appeasement and act-never-ism with the FAR more difficult military task of invading N. Korea ( which is likely already nuclear armed), and it would simply be impossible to get the U.N. on board. But of course U.N. consent is only an absolute requirement when a Conservative Republican is in the White House. When Clinton took on Milosevic, that somehow wasn't 'agression,' and an 'exit strategy' was no biggy!
Bush really only has one option now: to kiss European butt on N. Korea long enought to take out Saddam, while trying to build the bast case against N. Korea as he can. And that is what he is doing. It is contradictory, but practical given the cowardice of the left in the Western World.
Hrm, I don't remember iraq having anything to do with that.
Just goes to show you how little the left has learned, and how narrow their view of 9/11 has become. The lesson of 9/11 was not about just one nation, or one group, it is about the danger of ignoring clear and gathering dangers in this age of uber-fanatics waging asymmetrical warfare. It was about soberly looking at situations and heading them off before they happen, rather than hoping against hope that we'll get really lucky and intercept that nuke before they happen.
Anyway, if we do go to war with iraq, it will be the first unprovoked attack by the United States in its history.
Oh, cry for me. Preemptive attacks are an extremely common occurance throughout history. Are you saying we should wait until a nuke levels New York, then take the attacker out? Of course that is assuming we can the find clear and convincing evidence of exactly which group did it, exactly which state(s) sponsored them, etc. that our French, Russians, Chinese, and American Left always demand before taking action (unless the President is Bill Clinton, then there are no questions asked).
If we're so woried about nuclear terrorism, why don't we go after North Korea, who's leader is actualy insane, and actualy working on nukes.
Hold your horses, dude, Kim Jong Il (sp?) is simply NOT insane, I don't know where you got that. As for your point, he may be a brutal dictator, but he's never (to our knowledge) used chemical weapons on his own people, he doesn't assassinate foreign leaders, he doesn't invade his neighbors every chance he gets, and he doesn't fund Palestinian terrorist or have regular pow-wows with top Al Qaeda and other terrorist functionaries. Also, he at least acts on correct information, unlike Saddam who tends to make terrible strategic mistakes (such as invading Kuwait) purely because his underlings are afraid to give him accurate negative information. Finally, Kim Jong Il does not hate the West on the level Saddams, nor wish it's extinction as a goal, and so lacks the dangerous comminality of purpose with international terrorists.
This situation may change, but for now taking on N. Korea is not in the cards because 1) for the reasons listed above he is not demonstrably unstable or agressive like Saddam, and 2) we are already busy with Saddam. It would be unwise to start even talking about regime change in N. Korea when all our diplomatic energies are already being spent on convincing our 'allies' to go along on Iraq.
As for your implication that only N. Korea and not Iraq is developing nukes, get real, surely you don't believe Saddam kicked out the inspectors so that he could stop his nuclear program. Or DO YOU?
ARE you one of the 'useful idiots?'
Not *quite*. He was worried about a revolution. If you look at the Civil War and Sherman, you'd notice that the US government wasn't exactly nice to the people opposing it, either. Granted, not genocide...
Of course that was 150 years ago, and generally regarded as wrong, but that won't stop a moral relativist from using that to judge today's leaders.
And this is why Bush is trying to attack...uh...Iraq? When exactly did Iraq attack the United States of America again?
Christ, dude, don't you get it? The whole 9/11 thing? We can wait for the mushroom cloud to appear over New York, or we can take Saddam out now before he hands the nuke to terrorists, or is overthrown by them, or some other unforseen event or alliance. There are a thousand other possibilities, but pretending that you can predict them in this age of unpredictable terrorists, in a backward country like Iraq, with a demonstrably *unwise* dictator like Saddam, is the utmost in arrogant denial.
The only alternative is to keep that situation from ever occurring, and waiting for a smoking gun (or mushroom cloud) is just not possible.
What are you talking about? Anybody can switch the names around, but that doesn't make them fit.
What an astounding bit of moral equivalency.
Let's see, Saddam is a brutal dictator who gasses innocents in the name of political terror and genocide, the US is a democracy defending itself and freedom by selectively attacking only those who attacked it first, and in the process bringing freedom to millions.
Yeah, no difference whatsoever. Fucking asshole.
woohoo!
But I also don't like the fact that in the countries that allow free speech, the biggest megaphones are controlled by only a very small group of companies and individuals. What drivel! You can choose from ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,FOX,SKY NEWS,BBC, and a few more major news organizations, plus tens of thousands of newspapers, magazines, online publications, etc.! Instead of talking generically about 'potential' abuses by supposedly all-powerful, omnipotent companies, why don't you come up with some actual instances of real abuse.
of course the difference is that the idea of him actually getting to do that (or even that he was remotely seriously) is 0 in America, in China it has happened recently and does in fact happen all the time today.
...for me. I want to just open the darned browser! I don't want to think, "ok, i want this one on 3, this one on 2, where's that other? Oh yeah, it was on 4...no 3 is too crowded, let's to to 1...OK now i'm ready to start the friggin' app!" Desktops hide each running app in a certain desktop so you have to go searching for apps; what's the point, a less 'crunched' taskbar? If that's all you want, just expand it's size.
Maybe the XVID guys should pull another Cartman:
"Respect my Authoritaii!!!"
and sue their asses.