You should probably resist the temptation to take literally those posts which ridicule the banality of your non-sequiturs.
Banality huh? You really must be an staunch adherant to the fight fire with fire philosophy.
Regarding Guantanamo, I have no problem with the US holding combatant terrorists for as long as they deem necessary. These terrorists were not fighting under the accord of any acknowledged UN/Geneva conventions of war, thus they are not privy to the protections of said conventions.
Or any conventions of human rights either, apparently.
If they are terrorists, charge them as such - but stop crapping on.
As the other child post states, David Hicks has done nothing illegal under Australian law.
I have no problem with America becoming the new roman empire. But just stop trying to justify the behaviour - it's just embarassing. It is America's behaviour that is unlawful in this situation. No other country can be bothered risking their relationship (ie. financial and diplomatic) with the US over a bunch of Afghan nobodies and a handful of foreign nationals. The US can do as it pleases, no one will oppose it.
That Australia is none too desirous of having the combatant terrorists repatriated to Australia where they cannot be prosecuted under laws passed post Afghanistan-conflict, is not surprising.
Irrelevant. They don't care, it's all just to please the US. Why would Australia care about people who aren't enemies of Australia?
They'll let the US mete out whatever punishment they are due and then take them back at the appropiate time.
Not if they get the death penalty.
Australia has not sold out its citizens. They have sold out their Australian citizenship by engaging in illegal conflict.
Under Australian law (at the time), those Australian citizens held at Guantanamo have done nothing to warrant being held.
If you send your name and address to the US Military, I'm sure they'll be sure to send them directly to your residence when they are released. Perhaps you can pick up some Pashtun and learn how to make bombs.
I wouldn't have any problem with that, after all the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I'll get the shock of my life the day that any of my posts aren't taken literally.
On the (off)topic of Guantanamo, I find it more shocking that:
a)The US is holding so many people without any charges.
b)That my government (Australia) is happy to sell out it's own citizens in Guantanamo just so it can be first in line for the scraps from America's table.
I seriously wonder how long before we have another civil war. There is already civil unrest. We have it too good right now to take up arms...but I wonder if it will happen within my lifetime.
Right now, in the TIA database, a flag just went against your record for that post.
When the thought police kick down your door and drag you off to an internment camp the politicians and their friends who set up TIA will sleep a little safer at night.
What do you mean "our" marsbots, Mr. Winnipeg? Those are my tax dollars hard at work.
I suppose the French can lay an equal claim to them too?
The really great thing is that after America is consigned to the history books under the heading 'Other empires of note', the scientific benefits will still be there...
For example, supporting the right of Nazi freedom of speech can only lead to the growth of a movement that wants to take your freedom away.
For example, supporting the right of (insert any movement name here) freedom of speech can only lead to the growth of a movement that wants to take your freedom away.
Being a man, I tried feminism first.
Patriotism didn't work so well, but it's another one I don't like.
You should be free to speak, just not necessarily free to cause harm to others.
Distribution of that video, while it violates the child's privacy, does not tangibly harm anyone.
If you found out that your child had been filmed being raped, and that the footage was freely available on a medium which was impossible to stop I doubt that you would feel that way.
That being said,
Freenet is a good thing, the benefits outweight the drawbacks. The kiddy porn, terrorist, etc angle is overplayed.
People who harm children should be removed from the gene pool in the most expedient fashion possible.
A) sink $1.00+ into the machine to even play, B) read instructions on how to just do the most basic of moves, and C) you get about 3 minutes of playing time almost regardless of your previous skills with similar games.
Insert coins
Waggle joystick dementedly
Laugh at results
Repeat as required
I always do this, because I am a total spastic.
The last time I did this was on a fighting game - it was weird.
that rather than trying to fix the software that can copy notes, you design a note that's harder to copy in such a fashion? Maybe something that has a clear window, shadow image, fluorescent printing, and more? Something that makes it much easier for the end user to check (in several ways) the authenticity of a given note?
Why don't they just put RFID in it? For once it would be a good reason to use said technology - you could automatically validate any given piece of currency via a simple lookup.
Mind you, I can think of several reasons why end to end currency tracking mightn't be so good.
... Here's a clue to all you movie makers of the future: it isn't about which software have, or which computer you are running. Movie making is hard because most people don't tell very interesting stories.
Heretic! Burn him at the stake. If this sort of thinking takes hold then we'll never be able to get audiences for "Teen slumber party massacre 5: Return to the fluffy pink apocalypse".
It would be much more unfair for a father to be able to force a mother to have an abortion when she didn't want it.
You make a bad decision, you both shoulder the burden. Last time I checked (excluding the parent cloning article) it required 2 people to make a baby.
As for forcing abortions, I don't think that that was my point. I merely think that if a woman makes a decision that is binding on the father, without any reference to him, then it has the potential to be unfair. This could occur in either scenario of keeping the child, or terminating it.
I don't know about where you are, but the laws here (Australia) are very much biased towards the woman in family law cases, ie. women are assumed to be the better parent, access is frequently denied to the man, etc. That is not fair, and it's not equality.
I don't believe in women's rights, I don't believe in men's rights, I believe in fair and equal rights for all. There are often disparities in laws and in society in regards to the rights of certain groups - they need to be rectified.
By the way, the father's view on the issue either way happens to be irrelevant.
Unfortunatley, this is all too true. It annoys me that a man has no say in whether his child is born or not, but is expected to pay maintenance if the mother decides to continue with the pregnancy.
Slashdot Mirror
Banality huh? You really must be an staunch adherant to the fight fire with fire philosophy.
Regarding Guantanamo, I have no problem with the US holding combatant terrorists for as long as they deem necessary. These terrorists were not fighting under the accord of any acknowledged UN/Geneva conventions of war, thus they are not privy to the protections of said conventions.
Or any conventions of human rights either, apparently.
It is America's behaviour that is unlawful in this situation. No other country can be bothered risking their relationship (ie. financial and diplomatic) with the US over a bunch of Afghan nobodies and a handful of foreign nationals. The US can do as it pleases, no one will oppose it.
That Australia is none too desirous of having the combatant terrorists repatriated to Australia where they cannot be prosecuted under laws passed post Afghanistan-conflict, is not surprising.
Irrelevant. They don't care, it's all just to please the US. Why would Australia care about people who aren't enemies of Australia?
They'll let the US mete out whatever punishment they are due and then take them back at the appropiate time.
Not if they get the death penalty.
Australia has not sold out its citizens. They have sold out their Australian citizenship by engaging in illegal conflict.
Under Australian law (at the time), those Australian citizens held at Guantanamo have done nothing to warrant being held.
If you send your name and address to the US Military, I'm sure they'll be sure to send them directly to your residence when they are released. Perhaps you can pick up some Pashtun and learn how to make bombs.
I wouldn't have any problem with that, after all the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I look forward to your reply.
I'll get the shock of my life the day that any of my posts aren't taken literally.
On the (off)topic of Guantanamo, I find it more shocking that:
a)The US is holding so many people without any charges.
b)That my government (Australia) is happy to sell out it's own citizens in Guantanamo just so it can be first in line for the scraps from America's table.
It's sickening.
Right now, in the TIA database, a flag just went against your record for that post.
When the thought police kick down your door and drag you off to an internment camp the politicians and their friends who set up TIA will sleep a little safer at night.
But don't you dare speak up or question the validity of the TIA program. That would be unamerican.
Big Brother is always right, to think otherwise is thoughtcrime. You will be sent to the joycamp at guantanamo bay.
I suppose the French can lay an equal claim to them too?
The really great thing is that after America is consigned to the history books under the heading 'Other empires of note', the scientific benefits will still be there ...
That ought to do it. Flame on.
Sorry. I'll stand over hear and be quiet.
Are you kidding, that's a modern masterpiece. Feel no shame.
In the same vein: Weeee
Hopefully it will take out the hamster hutch as well. Die hamster die!
This is the one question they don't wish to address. And frankly, if I were in their position, I would be thankful that even 40% was profitable.
And I thought I'd never get laid that night, boy was I wrong!
For example, supporting the right of (insert any movement name here) freedom of speech can only lead to the growth of a movement that wants to take your freedom away.
Being a man, I tried feminism first.
Patriotism didn't work so well, but it's another one I don't like.
You should be free to speak, just not necessarily free to cause harm to others.
If you found out that your child had been filmed being raped, and that the footage was freely available on a medium which was impossible to stop I doubt that you would feel that way.
That being said,
I am not a doctor, but I have studied grays anatomy. Is it ok by you if I take out your kidneys?
Next time, just write 'I don't know crap, but I gotta opinion'. It's easier and more truthful.
Huh? 'Ethical lawyer' that's a bit of an oxymoron isn't it?
I always do this, because I am a total spastic.
The last time I did this was on a fighting game - it was weird.
If you are close enough to run a scanner over me, then you might as well finish the job ...
Why don't they just put RFID in it? For once it would be a good reason to use said technology - you could automatically validate any given piece of currency via a simple lookup.
Mind you, I can think of several reasons why end to end currency tracking mightn't be so good.
Heretic! Burn him at the stake. If this sort of thinking takes hold then we'll never be able to get audiences for "Teen slumber party massacre 5: Return to the fluffy pink apocalypse".
If they don't, fire them.
Don't be stupid, managers who don't know what they're doing get promoted.
Ahh, nothing more motivating than seeing a manager with the functional abilities of a stick of celery get promoted.
I merely think that if a woman makes a decision that is binding on the father, without any reference to him, then it has the potential to be unfair. This could occur in either scenario of keeping the child, or terminating it.
I don't know about where you are, but the laws here (Australia) are very much biased towards the woman in family law cases, ie. women are assumed to be the better parent, access is frequently denied to the man, etc. That is not fair, and it's not equality.
I don't believe in women's rights, I don't believe in men's rights, I believe in fair and equal rights for all. There are often disparities in laws and in society in regards to the rights of certain groups - they need to be rectified.
Unfortunatley, this is all too true. It annoys me that a man has no say in whether his child is born or not, but is expected to pay maintenance if the mother decides to continue with the pregnancy.
Equal rights? I don't think so.
I'd rather work with homely people who are human than that bunch of fucking vipers.
No WMD = No Free Trade
Sort of like: No Root = No Ride
Note: 'root' is Australian slang for fuck. You can imagine how amusing the American saying 'I'm rooting for' is for us.
I am the call centre/telecomms admin where I work. I get the benefit of being on both sides.
As an admin, I am constantly explaining to the department managers that to answer calls you need staff. Difficult concept, I know.
As a consumer of telco services, the only way to get any service is to be an A grade cunt. The squeeky wheel gets the oil.
That'd be any of them I suppose.