Wouldn't it be great to know who exactly needs that "FOOD, WATER, MEDICINE," and how badly? How about medical advice on how to use the medicine.
It boggles the mind that you could sit at your computer, hop on the internet and post here without understanding the vital role that communications play in modern society.
Not to mention that this long term planning in no way precludes helping in more immediate ways.
Hopefully it will, perhaps it won't. As you rightly point out there is no way of knowing.
The real point is that if you desire a safer world and see North Korea's nuclear capabilities as a dangerous there are three ways to deal with them.
1. Ignore them and hope the problem goes away, and hope they don't sell their nukes.
2. Pay North Korea the money it wants and encourage similar problems in the future.
3. Enforce the UN resolution against Iraq and threaten North Korea with the same if they don't listen to the UN.
The first two options will not help matters. The last option may. Before Sept 11 it was possible to hope that no-one would be willing to use WOMD first - because the nuclear powers had too much to loose. Clearly this is no longer the case. If a nuke was available to Bin Laden do you think he would have hesitated to use it against the US. Are you willing to bet your life that N. Korea would never sell a nuke?
As a side note do you really think Iran wouldwillingly give up their nuclear program while Saddam is still in power? Isreal? Do you prefer more countries with nukes or less? The less model has worked pretty well so far...
Should the US turn it's back on the UN in time of international crisis?
Well more to the point why shouldn't the US turn its back on the UN? Clearly the UNis not willing to act as more than a glorified debating club. France has no relevance in the 21st century; the have limited economic and military might, and historically have shown an unwillingness to stand up for what they belive in (including the sovergnity of their own country). Why should the US be held hostage to their veto?
Assumption B - Iraq does NOT have WOMD.
THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE BOMBING THEM?
Can you think of any other way to convince North Korea not to build, and later possibly sell nukes?
Should the US pay them a ransom of aid monies and encourage the same behavior by anyone who can build a nuke?
Do you think they would be intimidated by a UN resolution against them after the UN was so ineffective in Kosovo and IRAQ?
Should the US attack their nuclear plant and sacrifice Seoul to convice them we are serious?
Since 1945 WOMD have played only one roll in major war, namely that of a deterant.
Since 1945 WOMD have been held by the countries with the most to loose. The risk/reward equation changes dramatically as countries like North Korea and Iraq begin to aquire WOMD's.
Of course I'd also that Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds counts as a non-deterrent use of WOMD.
Are athletes going to take their eyes off the finish line or competitors to see what their heart rate is?
You're right. No athlete would ever want to do that, not even endurance athletes where one of the keys to success is to make your body work as hard aerobically as possible. It would be like race car drivers caring about RPM's and driving at the same time. That would never happen.
Germany, France and the rest of Europe do not support Bin Laden or Saddam...
No, but Saddam supports France and Germany and Russia with oil. At least we now know how much their souls cost.
Doesn't it strike you as a bit ironic that 50 years after the US and Britain liberated France and Germany (... and then left...) these countries are using that freedom to force their opinion down the throats of the rest of Europe and the prospective EU.
Imagine celebrating the gift of freedom by saying that the Kurds and Iraqis do not deserve to be freed from an oppressive dictator.
There are many good reasons to oppose war. It is ludicrous, however given the current balance of world power for France (especially) to think that they can leverage their position in the UN to stop the US from protecting itself. The reality of the situation is that the UN is worthless without the US, and is worthless to the US if it is not able to provide for American security.
It is inconceivable that France is willing to risk their relevance in the New World Order and the relevance of the UN for a couple of dollars. I'm sure that they would feel a bit differently if they had enough stature in world politics to be worthy of attack.
I'm into digital photography and image resizing just blows chunks. I'm sure the Mozilla gods have blessed us with a config option to disable this "feature."
It seems that everyone who does development work does not feel that they have made a difference unless they leave behind something to point at: A dam, a tall building, an internet... Please although internet access maybe easy to get your hands around, accessible technology that the educated can support and widely available, it really is way behind other issues that need to be fixed. Most countries need better laws, courts, banks not IT infrastructure.
Gee. Dosen't it strike you as a bit ironic that the forum in which you have chosen to advocating these changes... is on the internet!
It is your right to represent yourself, but there's no law that says that effective lawyerin' has to be easy or cheap.
This is a huge problem with today's Legal system. From the 40's to the 70's there was a gradual realization that the law should cover everyone, not just the enfranchised (rich). Unfortunately the baroque styling of our legal system have not changed with the times. Witness the huge backlog of civil and criminal cases currently in the courts, the funny costumes that the judges wear, the monstrous courthouses, and the obscure language used by the lawyers who have years of expensive schooling behind them.
What the lawyers hope to do is have the courts and politicians (who are generally older moneyed lawyers) protect this inefficient setup, even though it hurts those who end up spending more in lawyers fees than they would have in penalties. By not allowing public access to public documents Westlaw and Lexis-Nexus are part and parcel to this protection scheme. If they are unwilling to provide these documents to the poor, the government should step in and provide public access to all.
It is clear that a system of binding arbitration combined self "lawyerin'" would be more efficient and less costly for new poorer class of litigants that are filing our courtrooms... The lawyers and documents Westlaw and Lexis-Nexus, however, are happy to keep the rest of us in the dark, and to charge us for the privilege!
What if my time is worth money? Shouldn't I at least have control over that. If I have control over neither than what do I get control over? Attaching a link to a libertarian site to your comments is an abomination.
As for your so called "100 examples of time-wasting more significant than spam [and telemarketing]." I call bullshit. I dare you to name 10 time wasters that affect you as you sit in your house minding your own business.
You've got a difficult task ahead of you, proving that telemarketers should be classified as invaders who operate on the principle of coercion, just as thieves and kidnappers do.
Well, considering that the telephone is one of the foundations that modern society is built upon, and vital for emergency communication, I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to see a ringing telephone as something that needs to be answered for fear of imminent harm. (To others or to ones self.)
Your point is taken though, perhaps trespassing or peeping would be an easier parallel for those in the audience with limited imagination.
.. from telemarketers, usually from AT&T about long distance. Then I switched from the local crap service to MCI's neighborhood plan, and I get at most 1 a week, and then its usually from some charity organization like the local police or something, so I dont know if thats really considered telemarketing...
From transunion.com
http://www.transunion.com/content/page.jsp?id=/per sonalsolutions/general/data/OptOut.xml
Here are instructions on how to stop credit card applications.
Opt-Out Contact Information
TransUnion wants to help companies give American consumers the choices they want. This choice includes the right to say, "No, thank you" to their offers. If you want your name and address removed from mailing lists obtained from the main consumer credit reporting agencies -- TransUnion, Experian, Equifax, and Innovis -- call 888-5OPTOUT (888-567-8688), or write to the following address:
TransUnion LLC's Name Removal Option
P.O. Box 97328
Jackson, MS 39288-7328
Include the following information with your request:
* First, middle, and last names (including Jr., Sr., III)
* Current address
* Previous address (if you've moved in the last six months)
* Social Security number
* Date of birth
* Signature
Here at Duke, I am an Econ/Physics double major, working my ass off. Some jaded professor not even working at Duke currently writes an article for the washington post and we're all supposed to take note? He doesn't teach at Duke, doesnt know whats going on there. (Emphasis added.)
Perhaps you should spend less time touting how highly ranked your (supposed) school is, and more time learning how to write.
Slashdot Mirror
How about your freedom?
"Today a Volkswagen Bug, approximately the size of a meteorite, " ... ARRRRGH!!!
And given the "success" of those projects, would you feel any safer?
If I was the one being paid I sure would!
Wouldn't it be great to know who exactly needs that "FOOD, WATER, MEDICINE," and how badly? How about medical advice on how to use the medicine.
It boggles the mind that you could sit at your computer, hop on the internet and post here without understanding the vital role that communications play in modern society.
Not to mention that this long term planning in no way precludes helping in more immediate ways.
Hopefully it will, perhaps it won't. As you rightly point out there is no way of knowing.
The real point is that if you desire a safer world and see North Korea's nuclear capabilities as a dangerous there are three ways to deal with them.
1. Ignore them and hope the problem goes away, and hope they don't sell their nukes.
2. Pay North Korea the money it wants and encourage similar problems in the future.
3. Enforce the UN resolution against Iraq and threaten North Korea with the same if they don't listen to the UN.
The first two options will not help matters. The last option may.
Before Sept 11 it was possible to hope that no-one would be willing to use WOMD first - because the nuclear powers had too much to loose. Clearly this is no longer the case. If a nuke was available to Bin Laden do you think he would have hesitated to use it against the US. Are you willing to bet your life that N. Korea would never sell a nuke?
As a side note do you really think Iran wouldwillingly give up their nuclear program while Saddam is still in power? Isreal?
Do you prefer more countries with nukes or less? The less model has worked pretty well so far...
Well more to the point why shouldn't the US turn its back on the UN? Clearly the UNis not willing to act as more than a glorified debating club. France has no relevance in the 21st century; the have limited economic and military might, and historically have shown an unwillingness to stand up for what they belive in (including the sovergnity of their own country). Why should the US be held hostage to their veto?
Assumption B - Iraq does NOT have WOMD. THEN WHY THE HELL ARE WE BOMBING THEM?
Can you think of any other way to convince North Korea not to build, and later possibly sell nukes?
Should the US pay them a ransom of aid monies and encourage the same behavior by anyone who can build a nuke?
Do you think they would be intimidated by a UN resolution against them after the UN was so ineffective in Kosovo and IRAQ? Should the US attack their nuclear plant and sacrifice Seoul to convice them we are serious?
Since 1945 WOMD have been held by the countries with the most to loose. The risk/reward equation changes dramatically as countries like North Korea and Iraq begin to aquire WOMD's.
Of course I'd also that Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds counts as a non-deterrent use of WOMD.
Yes.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=codify
No kidding, there's nothing like hiding behind the military might of the US to make for a peacefull and quiet nation.
Just remember your peace and quiet comes at a price. If you are quiet for too long there may be no one left to defend you.
"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945 (ironically refering to the Germans)
You're right. No athlete would ever want to do that, not even endurance athletes where one of the keys to success is to make your body work as hard aerobically as possible. It would be like race car drivers caring about RPM's and driving at the same time. That would never happen.
No, but Saddam supports France and Germany and Russia with oil. At least we now know how much their souls cost.
Doesn't it strike you as a bit ironic that 50 years after the US and Britain liberated France and Germany (... and then left...) these countries are using that freedom to force their opinion down the throats of the rest of Europe and the prospective EU.
Imagine celebrating the gift of freedom by saying that the Kurds and Iraqis do not deserve to be freed from an oppressive dictator.
There are many good reasons to oppose war. It is ludicrous, however given the current balance of world power for France (especially) to think that they can leverage their position in the UN to stop the US from protecting itself. The reality of the situation is that the UN is worthless without the US, and is worthless to the US if it is not able to provide for American security.
It is inconceivable that France is willing to risk their relevance in the New World Order and the relevance of the UN for a couple of dollars. I'm sure that they would feel a bit differently if they had enough stature in world politics to be worthy of attack.
try about:config ->
browser.enable_automatic_image_resizing
Gee. Dosen't it strike you as a bit ironic that the forum in which you have chosen to advocating these changes ... is on the internet!
There is nothing more precious than information.
Ahh, good ol' Pennsyltuckey
This is a huge problem with today's Legal system. From the 40's to the 70's there was a gradual realization that the law should cover everyone, not just the enfranchised (rich). Unfortunately the baroque styling of our legal system have not changed with the times. Witness the huge backlog of civil and criminal cases currently in the courts, the funny costumes that the judges wear, the monstrous courthouses, and the obscure language used by the lawyers who have years of expensive schooling behind them.
What the lawyers hope to do is have the courts and politicians (who are generally older moneyed lawyers) protect this inefficient setup, even though it hurts those who end up spending more in lawyers fees than they would have in penalties. By not allowing public access to public documents Westlaw and Lexis-Nexus are part and parcel to this protection scheme. If they are unwilling to provide these documents to the poor, the government should step in and provide public access to all.
It is clear that a system of binding arbitration combined self "lawyerin'" would be more efficient and less costly for new poorer class of litigants that are filing our courtrooms... The lawyers and documents Westlaw and Lexis-Nexus, however, are happy to keep the rest of us in the dark, and to charge us for the privilege!
What if my time is worth money? Shouldn't I at least have control over that. If I have control over neither than what do I get control over? Attaching a link to a libertarian site to your comments is an abomination.
As for your so called "100 examples of time-wasting more significant than spam [and telemarketing]." I call bullshit. I dare you to name 10 time wasters that affect you as you sit in your house minding your own business.
You sir are a Troll.
Well, considering that the telephone is one of the foundations that modern society is built upon, and vital for emergency communication, I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to see a ringing telephone as something that needs to be answered for fear of imminent harm. (To others or to ones self.)
Your point is taken though, perhaps trespassing or peeping would be an easier parallel for those in the audience with limited imagination.
No, but it is the responsibility of the government to keep unwanted people from invading your home, be they robbers, kidnappers or telemarketers.
No, that's called extortion!
http://www.transunion.com/content/page.jsp?id=/pe
Here are instructions on how to stop credit card applications.
Opt-Out Contact Information
TransUnion wants to help companies give American consumers the choices they want. This choice includes the right to say, "No, thank you" to their offers.
If you want your name and address removed from mailing lists obtained from the main consumer credit reporting agencies -- TransUnion, Experian, Equifax, and Innovis -- call 888-5OPTOUT (888-567-8688), or write to the following address:
TransUnion LLC's Name Removal Option
P.O. Box 97328
Jackson, MS 39288-7328
Include the following information with your request:
* First, middle, and last names (including Jr., Sr., III)
* Current address
* Previous address (if you've moved in the last six months)
* Social Security number
* Date of birth
* Signature
-1 Pandering.
Perhaps you should spend less time touting how highly ranked your (supposed) school is, and more time learning how to write.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle.asp
Apparently the EOL thing hasn't hurt you to much. Thanks for sharing though...
Ahh yes. The bad old days of the Adobe Car.
This is a known troll. Mod's: please check this user's other posts and moderate accordingly.