Nope. Nothing in my post even vaguely implied ANYTHING you just said. Perhaps you could read it again and explain where I said anything about Microsoft not being successful? Or where I said anything about Bill G's dad keeping the present day corp afloat rather than merely bankrolling the startup until Bill could lie to IBM and get them to buy a product that didn't exist?
I don't know about the majority, I still explain to people everyday that urls don't go in the google searchbox. Google won the hearts of the informed users, and they are the ones who teach the average user how to browse the web and set their start page.
"I mean, you write as though Microsoft hasn't built itself into a major multinational corporation from nothing, or brought vast wealth to its principals."
HAHA You almost had me going. You made it sound almost as if the company wasn't started by a wealthy individual from a wealthy family with almost limitless startup capital. And then your post would almost seem to imply that Microsoft had become a major mulinational corporation through good business practices instead of lies, theft, and where those failed luck.
Lies and theft got them onboard with IBM, the rest was simply riding the success of the PC. Since they were onboard with IBM when the pc became successful, they were the default choice to load on clones and this carried them through feeble competative OS attempts in the early days. Then of course they have maintained that position since through anti-competative and monopolistic tactics and leveraged that monopoly to spread into other areas.
This is not exactly the story of some guys starting up a garage business on sweat and pocket lint and then making it to the top by providing something needed at the right time. Almost every step of the way Microsoft/Microsoft founders have succeed through acts that were illegal, immoral, or both.
"Open Office's interface is horrible. Inconsistent."
In what way? MS Office certainly has an inconsistent interface. You will find display properties under the file menu in MS Office for godsake. It makes absolutely NO logical sense. I have found the Open Office menus to be very consistent. Perhaps the difference is that I never bothered to memorize the menu layout in MS Office, instead I use the 'lets look where that feature should logically be located'. What scares me is that I am able to guess where features will be MIS-LOGICALLY located in MS programs as well.
"Linux rocks for development."
I would take that a step further and change it to "Linux rocks for developers" whether what they are doing is development or not. If you are competent to script and learn how to use apps before you expect them to work properly Linux is far superior as a platform. Bash+Perl+Cron afford power never dreamed on a Windows systems.
The GP of course is way off base, almost every task he listed having problems with is one that an office user should not be doing in the first place. Secretaries don't know what file associations are, let alone want to change them on network shares. Hell they shouldn't have access to do them even if they did. Admins on the hand can be expected to have already learned how to do these things.
"This is an example of a real defense program. But what kind of defense is a stealth bomber that is capable of flying half the perimetre of earth to release them?"
Actually the internet really isn't something that should have been funded by the MILITARY at all. It isn't really war research, offense or defense.
"But what kind of defense is a stealth bomber that is capable of flying half the perimetre of earth to release them?"
The kind that assures that every other nation that does not have a stealth bomber that is capable of flying undetected half way around the earth and dropping bombs does not take your gold. Weapons in themselves are neither offensive nor defensive. Weapons do not kill people, they are tools that PEOPLE use to kill people. Ideally NOBODY would have any weapons, the world is not ideal and there are bad (bad defined as those with conflicting interests since it lacks innate definition) guys with weapons. So long as the world is not ideal and there are theats and potential threats with weapons, the next best solution is for the good guys (good defined as those who share interests) to be strong enough that the bad guys are afraid of retaliation. I am not saying that the US Military/Gov/Corporate owners have restricted themselves to the ideal way to use weapons in this imperfect world; just that there is a legitimate reason for everyone to have weapons (govs and civs for that matter) and someone must develop those weapons.
"With this kind of thinking don't expect people to like you, the man with the guns is the bad one and other people are justified to try to harm him. It is like saying that a neighbor of yours is trespassing your property because he has enough wealth and power to not care about the law enforcement."
Nonesense, only the man who uses force and loses is known as the bad guy. History shows the victor to be the good guy. Unless of course the current guy with all the guns spreads propoganda that a previous victor's known ideals conflicts with, then he miraculously becomes a bad guy who .
As for your example, you need to look a little more closely. You don't really believe that there is some innate correct 'owner' of property do you? If the man with the cannons was law enforcement coming and using their guns to confiscate your property because you broke their rules would you have the same view? Law enforcement is by definition the application of force to make others follow the rules of those who possess the power to apply force. By what right do they apply it? Simple, by right of the fact that nobody is strong enough to say otherwise.
Even a government 'by the people' is only a trick to keep the powerless in line while those with the force coax their gold from them 'gently' by passing laws. These laws generally help to insure that the those with the most gold will continue to possess the greatest force (or control of its use) and to continue to gently take the gold from the middle and lower classes.
Welcome to the real world. On every level the one with the force takes the gold and if he is wise uses it to gain more force. Even in the workplace, the business owners possess force that they use to enforce labor requirements, this allows them to essentially rob their employees of the gold they would have gotten without these requirements. They do this to the extent their force with allow. Employees form unions to develop counter-force to attempt to take more gold for themselves.
The entire world on every level is nothing more than a power struggle. In the real world the self-less who live by ideals instead of wishing for them are just the ones that are being taken advantage of by the non-idealists. So go, work your 60 hr workweek on salary and be exploited the major stockholders who believe in the real world and base their actions upon it.
'Ok, this is where people step into the room and go, ok but that line look really messed up to a Windows user that is use to wrtiting faster and simpilier syntax.'
I missed where that was relevant. This was an offtopic thread where someone asked how to accomplish a task for informational purposes, not to raise a challenge.
Aside from that, it is true the windows way is faster (in the sense that it requires fewer keystrokes). The problem is that the windows way lacks logical consistancy. On one hand, that syntax is something that one might try. On the other hand, it does not complete a complete logically consistent system of shell function. The for command makes sense, it has a clearly defined function and behavior that can be expected. The same is true of all the core functions in *nix.
When you encounter a problem, you can pull out that *nix toolset and craft a solution using tools that function in exactly the way logic requires. Logic says that passing rename a list of files and asking it to rename it to an empty list of files will not work.
The *nix shell is a logical structure. Because it provides the functions needed to fill the logical way things work (like the ability to individually modify each element of a list of elements with a single command) and a structure that lets you suture them into custom solutions; the strongest of power users will not be willing to replace it with a different tool unless that tool improves upon this core principle of design that defines the best TOOL for ANY task (not merely shells).
The windows shell (and much of microsoft interface design) does not provide a complete logical structure. Instead of providing a complete logical structure, the windows shell operates on the principle of wishful thinking. For instance, this rename command. The syntax listed earlier is intuitive in the sense that a user is likely to try it, but the user would try it with fingers crossed because it doesn't really make sense. You can't close your eyes and picture the digital gears and pullies that would make the function work that way. The user would be pleased because the software worked the way they 'wanted' it to. But this design philosophy means that are always guessing and memorizing behavior. Design by what the typical guess is nice I suppose if you are typical and probably quicker to learn since guesses yield fruit. Design by logic will always provide a system that is more complete, and allows more rapid problem solving once learned.
To make the point using the same example in another way, it is worth pointing something out. Those who mentioned the windows way, know the windows way because they discovered it and remember the syntax. Those who listed the *nix way even said to check it first. Why? Because the *nix guys solved the problem by crafting a solution from components of a logical system and having a mastery of that system, not by lucking out and having a 'trick' syntax for that particular function.
* It should be noted that there are no shortage of trick syntaxes in the *nix world, especially in GNU tools. But knowing these is not required to craft a command line to solve a problem. Rather than being THE way to do something, these are merely alternative ways to do those things that might save a few keystrokes if you happen to be familiar with them.
What is your point? That things progress? Certainly. The parents point is that they progress when something better comes along, NOT because the best solution has been the best solution for a long time (long relative to human time perception, a completely arbitrary standard).
Riiiight, hell has been functioning properly for millions of years without a single crash. How can you claim it runs on windows with a straight face? Now if you were to claim that to be in hell is to be forced to use windows you might be on to something.
The parent is a technical question about the newly released technical solution that the slashdot story refers to. What variety of crack is so powerful that ANY mod could have possibly considered the parent post offtopic????!!!
"Well... to take the position of "Devil's Advocate" for a minute, if they just extended bash to have C# scripting, then you'd have lots of people on this forum yelling how they are perverting the standard and that this is just aploy for them to embrace and extend the existing shell language."
They could *gasp* go prepare a draft for an extension to the standard and forfeit patent rights to related tech etc, and then formally propose an extension to the standard. Standards can be changed and extended you know. It is not like you have to either adhere to standards OR have progress. The correct way is to progress through evolving open standards. They wouldn't even have to wait for the standards process to finish as long as they are prepared to change behavior to conform with the standard when finalized.
"Maybe the US like to call it a "defense" budget but it has nothing to do with defense. It should be an offense budget since this is their strategy in foreign politics. Most of those inventions are used to invade other countries or defend the friendly/cooperative regimes in the other side of the planet."
Actually the majority of the research funding used by the defense department goes toward research that could have defense applications in the future. Since most of the defense budget is spent on research then that means most of the defense budget goes to funding things that do not have a practical defense application. The result is that almost all funding for research/invention that does not have a clear commercial application comes from the defense department. One example is the network that grew to become the present day internet. The internet would not exist without U.S. Defense research spending, spending that did not yield a useful result for the military at all but instead brought on an information age that will reduce the need for war in the future by increasing communication.
Obviously non-commercially viable science is important, most commercially viable science wouldn't exist without the non-viable research that yielded its foundation. So I propose to simply stop calling this research 'defense' in the first place.
"Most of those inventions are used to invade other countries or defend the friendly/cooperative regimes in the other side of the planet. The later is even more of an offensive strategy since meddling with other countries' affairs creates more foreign enemies and results in more excuses to invade an other country. If the US weren't so dominant over the world they wouldn't have so many enemies and could do with a smaller "defense" budget."
Agreed. Although as previously stated most defense funded research does not lead to war machines of any kind. Another example of this is the hundreds of millions that the defense department has pumped into fusion research. I certainly agree that the US should not be dabbling into the affairs of the other nations on Earth.
However, as a USian I do feel it to be to our advantage to continue to maintain a military force at least large enough to face little challenge from any other nation/multi-national force. The golden rule is nice and all, but lets be honest; the man with the guns simply takes the gold.
How does this post makes sense in reply to a post that points out that an additional law is needed to prevent employers from requiring the implants? I'm not sure how comprehensive this law is but I hope it would prevent a de facto requirement in additional to a hard requirement.
For instance, if the chip were required to participate in social security or to use US Currency. Nobody is forced to use cash but it is not practical to do otherwise in our society. Or if the new edition of the state id card and drivers license were microchip only. Nobody is forced to get a card, it is technically optional but in reality everyone has to have one to function in society. No government service or service enhancement should every depend on an implant whether mandatory or not.
I'm pretty sure that your account has been throttled for heavy usage. The more you rent the farther netflix makes the return facility and thereby increases your turn around time.
Definately. The sad thing is that high gold items like epic mounts are put into the game with the intention of removing gold from the game and balancing the economy.
Personally I think the game should implement sanctioned gold shops. After all, game companies like Blizzard are out to make money, there is not reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Nobody would take the risk of purchasing gold from a gold farmer if there was a sanctioned source for doing it. At the same time, because nobody will buy from a gold farmer there won't be gold farmers ninjaing loot and camping locations.
Great, so I can stick with my newb clothing and just setup a macro that runs me back to my body. That way I can have a level 1 rat beat on me for weeks and increase my armor rating.
Nobody ever accumulates much wealth by selling to NPC's anyway. It is by selling on the players market that you make significant sums of coin. The players market most definately reacts to a flood of items with price drops.
The Auction houses in Wow for instance, represent a capitalist economy with all the dynamics of supply and demand. That hardly eliminates gold farmers.
"As for death squads, those are not US security. If you think a bunch of pasty ass white guys or black guys from the US are running around Iraq undetected killing off civilians, you are simply delusional."
Last I checked the US trained security forces in Iraq are composed of Iraqis.
"If you think a bunch of pasty ass white guys or black guys from the US are running around Iraq undetected killing off civilians, you are simply delusional."
Apparently the seattle times is delusional as well. This was front page news in Europe; didn't really hit the radar here.
"Go to google news and type in "iraq mosque bombing". Unless all Shiites (women and children) are "traitors" because they are paying in a Shiite mosque, it is pretty clear that you have an ethnic/religious conflict going on."
Establishing that there is a religious conflict does not establish that the majority of deaths and violence in Iraq are the direct result of that conflict. It certainly does not make the actions of the United States moral.
Regarding the differences in death tolls. "Official" sources obviously are propoganda mills. Your other source is counting reported deaths, the source I quoted is using the data available to calculate ALL the deaths, not merely counting those that make the newspaper headlines. This is explained in the article I linked.
Regardless, I have grown bored with the discussion. *tips his hat*
LLUA, it is time you dropped off your high horse. I know very few people who don't have SOME relation in Iraq. I did serve my term wearing a Marine bib in the Navy as well.
As for the orders you claim don't exist (based upon nothing but your own assertion that they do not exist (because God knows, if troops were ordered to make an example of a terrorist family the brass would ring up every dipshit ex-marine and his brother so that they could make that statement without talking out their arses.
I have given a link to the reports and video. You have given your authorative "nu uh". Oh yes, I forgot, you also assured me that evidence doesn't count unless it is being presented by your brother in Iraq.
"You could of course, enlist and go to Iraq and "expose" everything that you claim is going on over there."
Why would I expose stories that have already been exposed? or did you think I magically summoned the video and articles I posted in this discussion?
Unless you have something more fruitful to add than your trolling let us call this an end to the discussion shall we?
No. The manufacturers are all supposed to provide a sample that is representative of the product that a consumer would purchase off the shelf. They are supplying this sample to a third party in hopes of a favorable review. The companies have been caught cheating.
Bah, this solves all our problems. Imagine all the fuel we can save with this stuff. Just stick the payload to the glue and then rocket the relatively light glue to space instead of the payload!
And you Europeans thought the American educational system was inferior, hah!
"It would be one thing if the insurgents were just trying to fight American forces. The issue is that they are blowing up their fellow citizens indiscrimently. They are not even limiting their targets to security forces of their government. They are hitting purely civilian targets with the intention of killing clearly innocent people."
Add the numbers up. The best I can do is 18 months in because i can't find the statistics either way after that. At that point 100,000 iraqi civilians had died, 80% of them were killed by US Forces directly or indirectly (indirect being collateral damage). That leaves 20,000.
We also know that there are reports of thousands dying at the hands of death squads composed of the US trained security forces. We claim that we suspect this is true (maybe it is all the reports of corpses still in cuffs) but that we are not supporting the activity and things are too chaotic to try to take action. I don't have a number for death squad killings because there simply are no valid numbers available, but it is believed by Iraqi officials to be in the thousands. Lets call if half of the unaccounted for space. That leaves 10,000 or 10% of the dead Iraqis.
How many of those are part of the US puppet government (nobody really believes that our government invades one strategic target after another to "spread freedom" I hope) and its security force. These individuals can all be safely considered traitors to natives who want a free Iraq. Lets call that half again.
This leaves 5%, 5% of the Iraqis that have died as a result of the Iraqi invasion, to have died as a result of "terrorists". It is a fairly safe bet that many of those are not war related at all, they are criminal elements taking advantage of the fact that authorities now assume foul play is terrorist related instead of starting looking for people with a grudge or who were owed money by the deceased.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Nothing in my post even vaguely implied ANYTHING you just said. Perhaps you could read it again and explain where I said anything about Microsoft not being successful? Or where I said anything about Bill G's dad keeping the present day corp afloat rather than merely bankrolling the startup until Bill could lie to IBM and get them to buy a product that didn't exist?
I don't know about the majority, I still explain to people everyday that urls don't go in the google searchbox. Google won the hearts of the informed users, and they are the ones who teach the average user how to browse the web and set their start page.
"I mean, you write as though Microsoft hasn't built itself into a major multinational corporation from nothing, or brought vast wealth to its principals."
HAHA You almost had me going. You made it sound almost as if the company wasn't started by a wealthy individual from a wealthy family with almost limitless startup capital. And then your post would almost seem to imply that Microsoft had become a major mulinational corporation through good business practices instead of lies, theft, and where those failed luck.
Lies and theft got them onboard with IBM, the rest was simply riding the success of the PC. Since they were onboard with IBM when the pc became successful, they were the default choice to load on clones and this carried them through feeble competative OS attempts in the early days. Then of course they have maintained that position since through anti-competative and monopolistic tactics and leveraged that monopoly to spread into other areas.
This is not exactly the story of some guys starting up a garage business on sweat and pocket lint and then making it to the top by providing something needed at the right time. Almost every step of the way Microsoft/Microsoft founders have succeed through acts that were illegal, immoral, or both.
"Open Office's interface is horrible. Inconsistent."
In what way? MS Office certainly has an inconsistent interface. You will find display properties under the file menu in MS Office for godsake. It makes absolutely NO logical sense. I have found the Open Office menus to be very consistent. Perhaps the difference is that I never bothered to memorize the menu layout in MS Office, instead I use the 'lets look where that feature should logically be located'. What scares me is that I am able to guess where features will be MIS-LOGICALLY located in MS programs as well.
"Linux rocks for development."
I would take that a step further and change it to "Linux rocks for developers" whether what they are doing is development or not. If you are competent to script and learn how to use apps before you expect them to work properly Linux is far superior as a platform. Bash+Perl+Cron afford power never dreamed on a Windows systems.
The GP of course is way off base, almost every task he listed having problems with is one that an office user should not be doing in the first place. Secretaries don't know what file associations are, let alone want to change them on network shares. Hell they shouldn't have access to do them even if they did. Admins on the hand can be expected to have already learned how to do these things.
"This is an example of a real defense program. But what kind of defense is a stealth bomber that is capable of flying half the perimetre of earth to release them?"
Actually the internet really isn't something that should have been funded by the MILITARY at all. It isn't really war research, offense or defense.
"But what kind of defense is a stealth bomber that is capable of flying half the perimetre of earth to release them?"
The kind that assures that every other nation that does not have a stealth bomber that is capable of flying undetected half way around the earth and dropping bombs does not take your gold. Weapons in themselves are neither offensive nor defensive. Weapons do not kill people, they are tools that PEOPLE use to kill people. Ideally NOBODY would have any weapons, the world is not ideal and there are bad (bad defined as those with conflicting interests since it lacks innate definition) guys with weapons. So long as the world is not ideal and there are theats and potential threats with weapons, the next best solution is for the good guys (good defined as those who share interests) to be strong enough that the bad guys are afraid of retaliation. I am not saying that the US Military/Gov/Corporate owners have restricted themselves to the ideal way to use weapons in this imperfect world; just that there is a legitimate reason for everyone to have weapons (govs and civs for that matter) and someone must develop those weapons.
"With this kind of thinking don't expect people to like you, the man with the guns is the bad one and other people are justified to try to harm him. It is like saying that a neighbor of yours is trespassing your property because he has enough wealth and power to not care about the law enforcement."
Nonesense, only the man who uses force and loses is known as the bad guy. History shows the victor to be the good guy. Unless of course the current guy with all the guns spreads propoganda that a previous victor's known ideals conflicts with, then he miraculously becomes a bad guy who .
As for your example, you need to look a little more closely. You don't really believe that there is some innate correct 'owner' of property do you? If the man with the cannons was law enforcement coming and using their guns to confiscate your property because you broke their rules would you have the same view? Law enforcement is by definition the application of force to make others follow the rules of those who possess the power to apply force. By what right do they apply it? Simple, by right of the fact that nobody is strong enough to say otherwise.
Even a government 'by the people' is only a trick to keep the powerless in line while those with the force coax their gold from them 'gently' by passing laws. These laws generally help to insure that the those with the most gold will continue to possess the greatest force (or control of its use) and to continue to gently take the gold from the middle and lower classes.
Welcome to the real world. On every level the one with the force takes the gold and if he is wise uses it to gain more force. Even in the workplace, the business owners possess force that they use to enforce labor requirements, this allows them to essentially rob their employees of the gold they would have gotten without these requirements. They do this to the extent their force with allow. Employees form unions to develop counter-force to attempt to take more gold for themselves.
The entire world on every level is nothing more than a power struggle. In the real world the self-less who live by ideals instead of wishing for them are just the ones that are being taken advantage of by the non-idealists. So go, work your 60 hr workweek on salary and be exploited the major stockholders who believe in the real world and base their actions upon it.
'Ok, this is where people step into the room and go, ok but that line look really messed up to a Windows user that is use to wrtiting faster and simpilier syntax.'
I missed where that was relevant. This was an offtopic thread where someone asked how to accomplish a task for informational purposes, not to raise a challenge.
Aside from that, it is true the windows way is faster (in the sense that it requires fewer keystrokes). The problem is that the windows way lacks logical consistancy. On one hand, that syntax is something that one might try. On the other hand, it does not complete a complete logically consistent system of shell function. The for command makes sense, it has a clearly defined function and behavior that can be expected. The same is true of all the core functions in *nix.
When you encounter a problem, you can pull out that *nix toolset and craft a solution using tools that function in exactly the way logic requires. Logic says that passing rename a list of files and asking it to rename it to an empty list of files will not work.
The *nix shell is a logical structure. Because it provides the functions needed to fill the logical way things work (like the ability to individually modify each element of a list of elements with a single command) and a structure that lets you suture them into custom solutions; the strongest of power users will not be willing to replace it with a different tool unless that tool improves upon this core principle of design that defines the best TOOL for ANY task (not merely shells).
The windows shell (and much of microsoft interface design) does not provide a complete logical structure. Instead of providing a complete logical structure, the windows shell operates on the principle of wishful thinking. For instance, this rename command. The syntax listed earlier is intuitive in the sense that a user is likely to try it, but the user would try it with fingers crossed because it doesn't really make sense. You can't close your eyes and picture the digital gears and pullies that would make the function work that way. The user would be pleased because the software worked the way they 'wanted' it to. But this design philosophy means that are always guessing and memorizing behavior. Design by what the typical guess is nice I suppose if you are typical and probably quicker to learn since guesses yield fruit. Design by logic will always provide a system that is more complete, and allows more rapid problem solving once learned.
To make the point using the same example in another way, it is worth pointing something out. Those who mentioned the windows way, know the windows way because they discovered it and remember the syntax. Those who listed the *nix way even said to check it first. Why? Because the *nix guys solved the problem by crafting a solution from components of a logical system and having a mastery of that system, not by lucking out and having a 'trick' syntax for that particular function.
* It should be noted that there are no shortage of trick syntaxes in the *nix world, especially in GNU tools. But knowing these is not required to craft a command line to solve a problem. Rather than being THE way to do something, these are merely alternative ways to do those things that might save a few keystrokes if you happen to be familiar with them.
What is your point? That things progress? Certainly. The parents point is that they progress when something better comes along, NOT because the best solution has been the best solution for a long time (long relative to human time perception, a completely arbitrary standard).
Perhaps you need to look at the bigger picture. The desktop is a battle, not the war.
Riiiight, hell has been functioning properly for millions of years without a single crash. How can you claim it runs on windows with a straight face? Now if you were to claim that to be in hell is to be forced to use windows you might be on to something.
The parent is a technical question about the newly released technical solution that the slashdot story refers to. What variety of crack is so powerful that ANY mod could have possibly considered the parent post offtopic????!!!
Last I checked *nix is still winning ;)
"Well ... to take the position of "Devil's Advocate" for a minute, if they just extended bash to have C# scripting, then you'd have lots of people on this forum yelling how they are perverting the standard and that this is just aploy for them to embrace and extend the existing shell language."
They could *gasp* go prepare a draft for an extension to the standard and forfeit patent rights to related tech etc, and then formally propose an extension to the standard. Standards can be changed and extended you know. It is not like you have to either adhere to standards OR have progress. The correct way is to progress through evolving open standards. They wouldn't even have to wait for the standards process to finish as long as they are prepared to change behavior to conform with the standard when finalized.
"Maybe the US like to call it a "defense" budget but it has nothing to do with defense. It should be an offense budget since this is their strategy in foreign politics. Most of those inventions are used to invade other countries or defend the friendly/cooperative regimes in the other side of the planet."
Actually the majority of the research funding used by the defense department goes toward research that could have defense applications in the future. Since most of the defense budget is spent on research then that means most of the defense budget goes to funding things that do not have a practical defense application. The result is that almost all funding for research/invention that does not have a clear commercial application comes from the defense department. One example is the network that grew to become the present day internet. The internet would not exist without U.S. Defense research spending, spending that did not yield a useful result for the military at all but instead brought on an information age that will reduce the need for war in the future by increasing communication.
Obviously non-commercially viable science is important, most commercially viable science wouldn't exist without the non-viable research that yielded its foundation. So I propose to simply stop calling this research 'defense' in the first place.
"Most of those inventions are used to invade other countries or defend the friendly/cooperative regimes in the other side of the planet. The later is even more of an offensive strategy since meddling with other countries' affairs creates more foreign enemies and results in more excuses to invade an other country. If the US weren't so dominant over the world they wouldn't have so many enemies and could do with a smaller "defense" budget."
Agreed. Although as previously stated most defense funded research does not lead to war machines of any kind. Another example of this is the hundreds of millions that the defense department has pumped into fusion research. I certainly agree that the US should not be dabbling into the affairs of the other nations on Earth.
However, as a USian I do feel it to be to our advantage to continue to maintain a military force at least large enough to face little challenge from any other nation/multi-national force. The golden rule is nice and all, but lets be honest; the man with the guns simply takes the gold.
How does this post makes sense in reply to a post that points out that an additional law is needed to prevent employers from requiring the implants? I'm not sure how comprehensive this law is but I hope it would prevent a de facto requirement in additional to a hard requirement.
For instance, if the chip were required to participate in social security or to use US Currency. Nobody is forced to use cash but it is not practical to do otherwise in our society. Or if the new edition of the state id card and drivers license were microchip only. Nobody is forced to get a card, it is technically optional but in reality everyone has to have one to function in society. No government service or service enhancement should every depend on an implant whether mandatory or not.
I'm pretty sure that your account has been throttled for heavy usage. The more you rent the farther netflix makes the return facility and thereby increases your turn around time.
Definately. The sad thing is that high gold items like epic mounts are put into the game with the intention of removing gold from the game and balancing the economy.
Personally I think the game should implement sanctioned gold shops. After all, game companies like Blizzard are out to make money, there is not reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Nobody would take the risk of purchasing gold from a gold farmer if there was a sanctioned source for doing it. At the same time, because nobody will buy from a gold farmer there won't be gold farmers ninjaing loot and camping locations.
Great, so I can stick with my newb clothing and just setup a macro that runs me back to my body. That way I can have a level 1 rat beat on me for weeks and increase my armor rating.
Nobody ever accumulates much wealth by selling to NPC's anyway. It is by selling on the players market that you make significant sums of coin. The players market most definately reacts to a flood of items with price drops.
The Auction houses in Wow for instance, represent a capitalist economy with all the dynamics of supply and demand. That hardly eliminates gold farmers.
"As for death squads, those are not US security. If you think a bunch of pasty ass white guys or black guys from the US are running around Iraq undetected killing off civilians, you are simply delusional."
/ 2002876683_civilians20.html
Last I checked the US trained security forces in Iraq are composed of Iraqis.
"If you think a bunch of pasty ass white guys or black guys from the US are running around Iraq undetected killing off civilians, you are simply delusional."
Apparently the seattle times is delusional as well. This was front page news in Europe; didn't really hit the radar here.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld
"Go to google news and type in "iraq mosque bombing". Unless all Shiites (women and children) are "traitors" because they are paying in a Shiite mosque, it is pretty clear that you have an ethnic/religious conflict going on."
Establishing that there is a religious conflict does not establish that the majority of deaths and violence in Iraq are the direct result of that conflict. It certainly does not make the actions of the United States moral.
Regarding the differences in death tolls. "Official" sources obviously are propoganda mills. Your other source is counting reported deaths, the source I quoted is using the data available to calculate ALL the deaths, not merely counting those that make the newspaper headlines. This is explained in the article I linked.
Regardless, I have grown bored with the discussion. *tips his hat*
LLUA, it is time you dropped off your high horse. I know very few people who don't have SOME relation in Iraq. I did serve my term wearing a Marine bib in the Navy as well.
As for the orders you claim don't exist (based upon nothing but your own assertion that they do not exist (because God knows, if troops were ordered to make an example of a terrorist family the brass would ring up every dipshit ex-marine and his brother so that they could make that statement without talking out their arses.
I have given a link to the reports and video. You have given your authorative "nu uh". Oh yes, I forgot, you also assured me that evidence doesn't count unless it is being presented by your brother in Iraq.
"You could of course, enlist and go to Iraq and "expose" everything that you claim is going on over there."
Why would I expose stories that have already been exposed? or did you think I magically summoned the video and articles I posted in this discussion?
Unless you have something more fruitful to add than your trolling let us call this an end to the discussion shall we?
No. The manufacturers are all supposed to provide a sample that is representative of the product that a consumer would purchase off the shelf. They are supplying this sample to a third party in hopes of a favorable review. The companies have been caught cheating.
Yes I have. And speaking as who DID enlist, I know you either have a lousy memory or are talking out your arse.
Bah, this solves all our problems. Imagine all the fuel we can save with this stuff. Just stick the payload to the glue and then rocket the relatively light glue to space instead of the payload!
And you Europeans thought the American educational system was inferior, hah!
I bet I do. The troops are just following orders.
"It would be one thing if the insurgents were just trying to fight American forces. The issue is that they are blowing up their fellow citizens indiscrimently. They are not even limiting their targets to security forces of their government. They are hitting purely civilian targets with the intention of killing clearly innocent people."
Add the numbers up. The best I can do is 18 months in because i can't find the statistics either way after that. At that point 100,000 iraqi civilians had died, 80% of them were killed by US Forces directly or indirectly (indirect being collateral damage). That leaves 20,000.
We also know that there are reports of thousands dying at the hands of death squads composed of the US trained security forces. We claim that we suspect this is true (maybe it is all the reports of corpses still in cuffs) but that we are not supporting the activity and things are too chaotic to try to take action. I don't have a number for death squad killings because there simply are no valid numbers available, but it is believed by Iraqi officials to be in the thousands. Lets call if half of the unaccounted for space. That leaves 10,000 or 10% of the dead Iraqis.
How many of those are part of the US puppet government (nobody really believes that our government invades one strategic target after another to "spread freedom" I hope) and its security force. These individuals can all be safely considered traitors to natives who want a free Iraq. Lets call that half again.
This leaves 5%, 5% of the Iraqis that have died as a result of the Iraqi invasion, to have died as a result of "terrorists". It is a fairly safe bet that many of those are not war related at all, they are criminal elements taking advantage of the fact that authorities now assume foul play is terrorist related instead of starting looking for people with a grudge or who were owed money by the deceased.