"The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world."
What does the part in italics mean? that all afghanis are terrorists, or just most of them, or just those in charge? If it is just those in charge, are they terrorists or generals? are the men fighting soldiers in an army or members of al queda? where is the distinction?
.As for the northern Aliance, They are nothing more the mercenaries. We looked around for a existing faction that was alligned with our goals and paid them off to do our dirty work. Need I remind you of the warlord Dostum who killed ~3-5 thousand prisoners? Yep, we were working with him to fight "al Qaeda's vision"/taliban/terrorists. In fact the people that we worked with to overthrow the taliban bore a striking resemblence TO the taliban. Does that mean they are terrorists to? These labels, terrorists/freedom fighter are meaningless unless meaning is ascribed to them by the relevent authorities.
The cultural relics of the past, movie gems like Rambo III for instance, go a long way towards illustrating the public perception at that time. Whether or not the movie is a pile of shit is irrelevent. Rambo is an true blue, grade-A, commie-fighting, gung-ho American. The fact that he hooks up with the (cia backed) freedom fighters to fight the commies is awesome!! Now just imagine when that movie first came out, someone getting up and saying
"Rambo is a terrorist for helping those terrorists"
Are you kidding me? they would have had their ass kicked just for saying that shit. It strange now how people don't hesitate to call the afghanis "terrorists" now. But back then when context was different (and our interests aligned) we did not hesitate to call them freedom fighters. Which is it? some of those same "freedom fighter" fought us and are now "terrorists".
Soldiers are constantly attacking and killing civilians.
Ask the *Civilian* survivors of the firebombing of Dresden if they were terrorised, or the cars with families in them that enter the wrong checkpoint in Iraq. It's not unheard of for civilians to be killed in a "low intensity" war such as the one in Iraq, in fact it's quite common.
"a part of the ConsumerFreedom.com network,
is committed to providing detailed and up-to-date
information on where anti-consumer organizations
and activists get their money."
Seeing as this whole thread is already a huge flame fest, I have to say that "Anyone but Bush in 2004" is a legitimate position to take, especially in this round of presidential politics. This report only provides more reasons to say it; it exemplifies the kind of BS that bush is full of. I mean for christ sakes, who listens to the fucking lead lobby??
What's the distinction between a terrorist and someone who fights for what they believe in? none. After all not to long ago the Taliban were called "Freedom Fighters", ever see Rambo III???
I *agree* there is a level of implicit guilt in running a freenet node, Even if traffic analysis was not an issue there is always the "Gosh that person must be guilty if they have something to hide". I agree that: by that rational, everybody in the country is guilty to a degree. In some places in the world and times in history, a person could be considered guilty just walking down the street(hopefully not yet here)! After all, we are all "creatures of sin"/"working to overthrow the state"/"terrorists"/"ad infinitum", any excuse for a totalitarian society to oppress it's citizens will be taken. I am sure you can see where I am going right? In my opinion it is better to stake out a stand against an intrusive government(that is what this is all about right?) with an issue like freenet rather then having to fight for your right to walk down the street.
Do NOT underestimate the intelligence of these so called "n00bs", people are capable of making their own decisions. Look at file sharing in general, it is associated with a strong youth/anti-authoritarian streak in america today. Do you think that simply because people are not technically literate they do not see the content on p2p/freenet and understand that the material is dangerous to themselves?
Are you saying they, the masses, do not see what they are doing?
Why do they still use those technologies? because they psychologically don't give a flying fuck what the government says. We are a morally bankrupt society that will take what it can get and always eyes politicians and the government with a certain distrust.
Fuck it, I say do foist these technologies onto the noobs, they can make a decision on their own,let it pervade the technosphere, let the information flow where it will.
Oh, by the way "it's your door, not theirs, that will be broken down. If Ian and Matt want to take such a radical stand for free speech, let them host the illegal content, and let them take the risks."
What does it matter to you what people do? Your commentary almost sounds like those opposed to peer2peer networks in general. Are you opposed to p2p? Are you opposed to freedom of information? Should there be restrictions on what a person can KNOW?
Now pull the plug before someone gets killed. people are dying every fucking day.
to the parent of this post. There is such a thing as evil information, as it relates to an individual. however, information WILL be free, evil or no, it cannot be stopped, it will not be stopped, only delayed. People again and again make the mistake of wondering why this shit comes around and smacks them on the head, IT CANT BE STOPPED!! Freenet goes away? give it a couple years, something else will come along. The information belongs to us all, not just the security apparatus of our free societies, lets use it!
Recently discovered Nazi documents and Polish eyewitness testimony make clear that IBM's alliance with the Third Reich went far beyond its German subsidiary. A key factor in the Holocaust in Poland was IBM technology provided directly through a special wartime Polish subsidiary reporting to IBM New York, mainly to its headquarters at 590 Madison Avenue.
And that's how the trains to Auschwitz ran on time.
A lot of american companies had relationships with the nazis. But it is rather startling, the level of logistical support that IBM provided. I guess the argument could be made that computers don't kill people, Nazi madmen kill people. Though any help given to the Nazis is really impossible to defend.
The account of J Smith's revelation is quite an interesting read. Often I feel that the main crux of people's discomfort with the Church of Mormon is summed up best in J smith's account of a meeting with a methodist preacher
Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as avisions or brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.
The preachers argument makes a certain amount of sense, from the perspective of an established relegion and the perspective of the agnostic or atheist. It seems to me, an agnostic, that fresh ideologies and relegions, fresh in the sense of being new and having a relatively unspoiled doctrin-a doctrin handed directally down from the founder, tend to resonate and embody the pathologies of the founder and have little to do with a personal god.
Now this is not just a dig at the LDS church, I am talking about ideological fundementalism as well, an ideological framework that springs from an individual, such as mao or radical islamists. The new, and fresh ideologies (especially those generated in the era of mass media), even if they are based on existing structures, such as confucionism in mao's case or the bible in J smiths case, tend to miss the nuances of the underlying ideological framework and enhance those individual pathologys.
Now I am not saying that there is no merit to the teaching of any new prophet or any new scholar, I personally enjoy that nuanced approach to relegion, one that stresses the architypal human endevours. Overall the LDS seems to be a good relegion, those fuckers who ride around on bikes and preach are always polite, almost to a fault! But it is a new relegion, and based on the word of several men. These men were born recently enough that there was insuffecient time for their persona's to evolve to a point where they seem reasonable. I think for the most part, the LDS church ( and most churches for that matter) are unreasonable
I just find the idea of a revelation of the sort that smith had to be nowhere near the caliber needed to claim dominance in the field of all relegions or be any more relevent then the Branch Dividians. There are so many more that could be better the the LDS. Fuck, at this point popular culture has a stronger hold over peoples minds then these relegions.
I really have a hard time understanding an obsession with these abstractions. If the truth comes from the word of god, why not do what smith did and find god for *yourself*. Not participate in the distorted mental machinations of one man! take it for what its worth, the rantings of an infidel.
I will leave with an excerpt from William James's The Varieties of Religious Experience (of which, I may add, there seems to be a startling array of), It addresses my point regarding the pathologys of the founders of relegions.
If you ask for a concrete example, there can be no better one than is furnished by the person of George Fox. The Quaker religion which he founded is something which it is impossible to overpraise. In a day of shams, it was a religion of veracity rooted in spiritual inwardness, and a return to something more like the original gospel truth than men had ever known in England. So far as our Christian sects today are evolving into liberality, they are simply reverting in essence to the position which Fox and the early Quakers so long ago assumed. No one can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound. Everyone who confronted him personally, f
where did the plates go? this really is quite a simple question. Perhaps an appropriate answer might be, "destroyed, missing, or protected by the Lord", or some shit.
I wonder if you might have thought my question was simply rhetorical, if that is the case I am sorry I misled you. No, I am actually curious to hear what happened, and I am too lazy to google it.
using conservation of angular momentum... I*(omega)initial=I*(omega)final I=(b eta)MR^2 (for earth)
(beta)MR^2*(omega)initial=(beta+.3)MR^2*(omega)f in al
omega=V/R , thats tangential velocity over radius
so solving for V tangential final
[(beta)MR^2*V]/[(beta+0.3)*MR^2]=V final
canceling
[(beta)/(beta + 0.3)] * V(initial)=V(final) Can somebody check my algebra here? Maybe somebody who is good at physics? Is it right? slow down by a factor of.3? Seems a little drastic, but I guess I wouldn't be suprised...
I have been using a logitech 2 button/wheel button optical mouse for at least a year. After using this device for extended periods of time I can confidently say that its just as easy to use a middle scroll as a middle button.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe it's everyone else's
Somehow it always ends up that civilians get killed though huh?
teh difference between intentional attacks and colateral damage.
As the old saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intensions.
"The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world."
What does the part in italics mean? that all afghanis are terrorists, or just most of them, or just those in charge? If it is just those in charge, are they terrorists or generals? are the men fighting soldiers in an army or members of al queda? where is the distinction?
.As for the northern Aliance, They are nothing more the mercenaries. We looked around for a existing faction that was alligned with our goals and paid them off to do our dirty work. Need I remind you of the warlord Dostum who killed ~3-5 thousand prisoners? Yep, we were working with him to fight "al Qaeda's vision"/taliban/terrorists. In fact the people that we worked with to overthrow the taliban bore a striking resemblence TO the taliban. Does that mean they are terrorists to? These labels, terrorists/freedom fighter are meaningless unless meaning is ascribed to them by the relevent authorities.
"Rambo is a terrorist for helping those terrorists"
Are you kidding me? they would have had their ass kicked just for saying that shit. It strange now how people don't hesitate to call the afghanis "terrorists" now. But back then when context was different (and our interests aligned) we did not hesitate to call them freedom fighters. Which is it? some of those same "freedom fighter" fought us and are now "terrorists".Which is it????
Ask the *Civilian* survivors of the firebombing of Dresden if they were terrorised, or the cars with families in them that enter the wrong checkpoint in Iraq. It's not unheard of for civilians to be killed in a "low intensity" war such as the one in Iraq, in fact it's quite common.
"a part of the ConsumerFreedom.com network,
is committed to providing detailed and up-to-date
information on where anti-consumer organizations
and activists get their money."
give me a break! no bias there huh?
Anyone but Bush in 2004
What's the distinction between a terrorist and someone who fights for what they believe in? none. After all not to long ago the Taliban were called "Freedom Fighters", ever see Rambo III???
Do NOT underestimate the intelligence of these so called "n00bs", people are capable of making their own decisions. Look at file sharing in general, it is associated with a strong youth/anti-authoritarian streak in america today. Do you think that simply because people are not technically literate they do not see the content on p2p/freenet and understand that the material is dangerous to themselves?
Are you saying they, the masses, do not see what they are doing?
Why do they still use those technologies? because they psychologically don't give a flying fuck what the government says. We are a morally bankrupt society that will take what it can get and always eyes politicians and the government with a certain distrust.Fuck it, I say do foist these technologies onto the noobs, they can make a decision on their own,let it pervade the technosphere, let the information flow where it will.
Oh, by the way
"it's your door, not theirs, that will be broken down. If Ian and Matt want to take such a radical stand for free speech, let them host the illegal content, and let them take the risks."
What does it matter to you what people do? Your commentary almost sounds like those opposed to peer2peer networks in general. Are you opposed to p2p? Are you opposed to freedom of information? Should there be restrictions on what a person can KNOW?
Now pull the plug before someone gets killed.
people are dying every fucking day.
to the parent of this post.
There is such a thing as evil information, as it relates to an individual. however, information WILL be free, evil or no, it cannot be stopped, it will not be stopped, only delayed. People again and again make the mistake of wondering why this shit comes around and smacks them on the head, IT CANT BE STOPPED!! Freenet goes away? give it a couple years, something else will come along. The information belongs to us all, not just the security apparatus of our free societies, lets use it!
check out this
scrolling down we get this list,
The country-by-country medians for military personnel killed in the war are:
* USSR: 10.0M
* Germany: 3.5M
* China: 2.05M
* Japan: 1.5M
* USA: 0.4M
* Romania: 0.3M
* Yugoslavia: 0.3M
* UK: 0.28M
* Italy: 0.23M
* France: 0.21M
* Hungary: 0.14M
* Poland: 0.125M
* TOTAL: 19.0M
looks like we all owe stalin a big fat thank you.
Recently discovered Nazi documents and Polish eyewitness testimony make clear that IBM's alliance with the Third Reich went far beyond its German subsidiary. A key factor in the Holocaust in Poland was IBM technology provided directly through a special wartime Polish subsidiary reporting to IBM New York, mainly to its headquarters at 590 Madison Avenue.
And that's how the trains to Auschwitz ran on time.
A lot of american companies had relationships with the nazis. But it is rather startling, the level of logistical support that IBM provided. I guess the argument could be made that computers don't kill people, Nazi madmen kill people. Though any help given to the Nazis is really impossible to defend.
Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as avisions or brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.
The preachers argument makes a certain amount of sense, from the perspective of an established relegion and the perspective of the agnostic or atheist. It seems to me, an agnostic, that fresh ideologies and relegions, fresh in the sense of being new and having a relatively unspoiled doctrin-a doctrin handed directally down from the founder, tend to resonate and embody the pathologies of the founder and have little to do with a personal god.
Now this is not just a dig at the LDS church, I am talking about ideological fundementalism as well, an ideological framework that springs from an individual, such as mao or radical islamists. The new, and fresh ideologies (especially those generated in the era of mass media), even if they are based on existing structures, such as confucionism in mao's case or the bible in J smiths case, tend to miss the nuances of the underlying ideological framework and enhance those individual pathologys.
Now I am not saying that there is no merit to the teaching of any new prophet or any new scholar, I personally enjoy that nuanced approach to relegion, one that stresses the architypal human endevours. Overall the LDS seems to be a good relegion, those fuckers who ride around on bikes and preach are always polite, almost to a fault!
But it is a new relegion, and based on the word of several men. These men were born recently enough that there was insuffecient time for their persona's to evolve to a point where they seem reasonable. I think for the most part, the LDS church ( and most churches for that matter) are unreasonable
I just find the idea of a revelation of the sort that smith had to be nowhere near the caliber needed to claim dominance in the field of all relegions or be any more relevent then the Branch Dividians. There are so many more that could be better the the LDS. Fuck, at this point popular culture has a stronger hold over peoples minds then these relegions.
I really have a hard time understanding an obsession with these abstractions. If the truth comes from the word of god, why not do what smith did and find god for *yourself*. Not participate in the distorted mental machinations of one man!
take it for what its worth, the rantings of an infidel.
I will leave with an excerpt from William James's The Varieties of Religious Experience
(of which, I may add, there seems to be a startling array of), It addresses my point regarding the pathologys of the founders of relegions.
If you ask for a concrete example, there can be no better one than is furnished by the person of George Fox. The Quaker religion which he founded is something which it is impossible to overpraise. In a day of shams, it was a religion of veracity rooted in spiritual inwardness, and a return to something more like the original gospel truth than men had ever known in England. So far as our Christian sects today are evolving into liberality, they are simply reverting in essence to the position which Fox and the early Quakers so long ago assumed. No one can pretend for a moment that
in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound. Everyone who confronted him personally, f
this really is quite a simple question. Perhaps an appropriate answer might be, "destroyed, missing, or protected by the Lord", or some shit.
I wonder if you might have thought my question was simply rhetorical, if that is the case I am sorry I misled you. No, I am actually curious to hear what happened, and I am too lazy to google it.
fa
whoops, previous post responded that the .3 was the already present bulge...
using conservation of angular momentum...b eta)MR^2 (for earth)
f in al
.3?
I*(omega)initial=I*(omega)final
I=(
(beta)MR^2*(omega)initial=(beta+.3)MR^2*(omega)
omega=V/R , thats tangential velocity over radius
so solving for V tangential final
[(beta)MR^2*V]/[(beta+0.3)*MR^2]=V final
canceling
[(beta)/(beta + 0.3)] * V(initial)=V(final)
Can somebody check my algebra here? Maybe somebody
who is good at physics?
Is it right?
slow down by a factor of
Seems a little drastic, but I guess I wouldn't be suprised...
ahem*godwinslaw*ahem
Where did the plates go?
My favorite feature of Spaceword Ho! was on christmas all the planets turned into little santa heads..
I think you left out a step
1. Acquire assets
2. skip step two
3. Eat large amounts of DMT
4. Vomit
5. ???
6. ???
7. Profit
I guess I should have provided a link.
does the system involve hallucinogens?
Kenyan music rocks.
I have learned.
I can't speak for you, or the freakish condition of your flippers, but for me it is just as easy to use a thin scroll wheel as a fat middle button.
Chock full of hearty goodness...