Where is the physical evidence for the theory of common ancestry? Where are the missing links? In this particular case, evolution, in my opinion, flies in the face of science by ignoring some of the obvious missing pieces of evidence.
There are a number of reasons why the so-called missing link cannot be presented. Firstly, because the fossil record is incomplete; the chance of a dead animal becoming a fossil is smaller than, say, being struck by lightning. Secondly, fossils are rather difficult to find; they're buried in rock.
But lets put aside such difficulties, and look at the term "common ancestor". The so-called missing link is the ancestor that we and apes have in common. It is a mistake to assume that this missing link would look humanoid, or walk on two legs. More likely it would just appear like a large monkey, or a primative ape.
So even if scientists found the missing link, how could they tell what it was? They could classify it, give the species a name and speculate on its life and habitat, of course. But fossils are, at the end of the day, just rock. There isn't any way to tell whether man and ape are decendants of such a creature or not.
They successully exploited a vulnerability without knowing what the vulnerability was? Is this part of the if-we-stumble-around-long-enough-we'll-get-lucky-e ventually school of (cr|h)acking?:P
False, Visual Studio is widely renowned as the singular best programming environment there is, and is a large reason LOTS of programmers stick to Windows.
I'm a programmer, and the only times I use Visual Studio is when I have to. It's not really all that great, especially once you to start to explore outside the Microsoft fold.
Sure Iraq's military wasn't a threat to the US. However Iraq's money was. Just as Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers in Israel he was sponsoring terrorism elsewhere.
I'm curious. Do you think that there are less terrorists in the world as a result of the invasion of Iraq?
It is very stupid. However, it is something of a habit for the British to ignore laws that don't make sense. Whilst the RIP bill was passed in 2000, so far as I understand it, it has never actually been used.
If Microsoft wants to build a better browser, more power to them. If open source can't compete with proprietry products, it's not really a very good development model.
However, I believe that the Mozilla team can compete with Microsoft, even if it throws its whole weight behind IE. Apache has dominated the Web Server market for some time, despite Microsoft's best efforts. Perhaps you should have a bit more faith in the Firefox developers.
Finally, despite Microsoft's "crazy hiring tests", Microsoft has always seemed to me to be a company churning out mediocre software with first rate marketing. Despite its claims to the contrary, Microsoft is not a company comfortable with innovating.
Where its illegal to 'possess any information which might be useful to a terrorist' I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but do you have a source?
An apostrophe is not normally called a "single inverted comma" in England. That said, I once had an English teacher who insisted on calling apostrophes "inverted commas".
I totally understand your viewpoint. It is like God is holding a gun to your head and saying worship me or die. Right?
Hit the nail on the head.
Well, it isn't really like that. God is holy and perfect. He judges perfectly and he loves perfectly. Now, he creates humans to be in fellowship with him. Everything is fine until the fellowship is broken by sin.
Sin; which by definition, was created by God.
Now, the perfectly just thing to do is not to simply ignore the sin and let humans go on their merry way, without judging the sin. Yes, this is what you might think of as human mercy, but true justice demands that someone pay the penalty for the crime.
I have no problem with divine justice. The problem I have is that God appears to take a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. A mass murderer spends an eternity in hell, but apparently so does an atheist, reguardless of what good deeds said atheist does.
Here is the key, though. We were all guilty and doomed to hell.
A hell which was indirectly created by God.
God could have left the situation as it was or even snuffed out Adam & Eve before they started reproducing. But he had a plan to fix us, by allowing Jesus to atone for our sins. Now, if God were truly evil like so many people seem to believe, why would he bother sacrificing his Son? This seems irrational to me!
It seems irrational to me reguardless. If God is omnipotent, why would he have to sacrifice his son in order to change a system he set up in the first place? Couldn't he just correct the problem with a raise of his hand, without resorting to putting his son through torture and a slow death?
Finally, you have to understand, worship DOES NOT SAVE US. Our degenerate nature is incapable of true worship of God. It is our faith that Jesus died for our sins AND that he rose again from the grave that saves us. By our faith in his death, the penalty is paid for our sin.
Unfortunately, I can't have faith if there are unexplaned inconsitancies. I don't understand why there has to be sin. I don't understand why it was necessary for someone to be tortured and killed on a cross for it to be absolved. I don't understand why lack of faith warrents an eternity in hell.
Also, what becomes of all those who were born before Jesus? Or those that were born after, in remote places of the world, before planes and telephones and large ocean liners were invented? If someone lives their life without having heard of Jesus, what happens to them?
Let me ask you this: If you were an eternal, omnipotent and loving God, how could you demonstrate that love any better than dying for your creation?
By dying and then not returning back to life? It seems to me that that would be the greater sacrifice.
Or, perhaps, by not condemning everyone who doesn't worship you to eternal torment. It's difficult for me to understand people who say that God loves me, but that He will also condemn me to burn in hell for eternity if I don't worship Him.
God creates Man. He creates a tree that bears fruit and says to Man, eat it and you'll die. Man doubts God, so he eats it anyway.
For this act, God comdemns Man, and all his decendants, to a slow death, followed by eternal torment in Hell. The only way for Man to escape this fate is to bow down and worship his creator.
Is this more or less correct?
Because, forgive me, but God does not seem to be acting very morally at all.
But the important thing is, God knows we can't keep his law, cuz we have inherited Adam's curse of sinfulness.
But surely it was God that made this "sinfulness" inherited. He is, after all, omnipotent; he set up this cosmic system of inherited sin. It follows that we are only punished for Adam's alleged discretion because He wills it.
The sins of the father fall onto the child, and all that.
But this does not seem moral to me at all. Why is it right to punish people for actions their ancestors committed?
On the other hand, I feel uneasy, knowning almost certainly that this isn't legal (C'mon, this is DVD Jon!).
IIRC, in Norway reverse engineering is perfectly legal, and there is no DMCA-esque law.
Remember that the Norwegion courts have ruled before that DVD Jon has not done anything illegal. If he had, you can be sure the movie industry would be on Jon like a tonne of bricks.
So you can rest well, knowing that DVD Jon's actions are probably quite legal, at least in his country. What other people do with his work in countries that have different laws, is hardly his problem.
I've had similar experiences. When the parent post is modded down to -1, to the casual reader, you go from sounding clever to sounding seriously moronic:)
I really doubt Solaris represents much of a threat to Linux. Linux has been going for over ten years, and has built up a great amount of momentum; developers aren't just going to switch from coding for their operating system of choice to work on an unfamiliar Solaris. There isn't enough incentive.
Whilst I'm sure Solaris will attract some attention, I'd guess that the majority of developers will stick with the operating system they know. Whilst Sun can throw a lot of weight behind this project, it's easier to keep an open source project moving along at speed, than it is to start a new one. I'm skeptical as to whether open-source Solaris can attract the developer attention that Linux has.
Whilst businesses are pretty much free to choose what they want, the writer seems to be suggesting that because Solaris is open source, that will somehow make it magically better. Businesses are not usually known for choosing software simply because it is open source. Unfortunately, just making a product open source is not an automatic recipe for success, otherwise Hurd would garner just as much attention as Linux.
If I'm reading the article right the software *and* the hardware is sold as a standard package. Therefore any updates can be extensively tested by the company offering the service, before being uploaded through to their client's computers.
Because the company knows that their test machines are identical to the machines used by their clients, the company offering this service can test out the updates to make sure they work. In fact, they could probably test the systems more thoroughly than an on-site admin who may have other duties.
The only problem with this is if the hardware itself breaks in one or more of the client's computers.
I think there's already an SQLEDDI piece of software that was developed at Warwick for a PhD project.
This page looks like the place to go, but I doubt the software will be that usable. And I'm unsure of the license on it.
It also wouldn't my life that much easier at the moment. I use very few database queries in my software. Even PHP/MySQL projects use only a handful of queries. EDDI isn't directly translatable to SQL, either; SQL joins aren't natural by default, whilst EDDI's are.
In short, as nice as it would be, it would take more time than I'd save. If I ever find myself manipulating databases more regularly, though, I'll certainly think about an EDDI interpretor;)
I'm somewhat skeptical of reports talking about the place of natural language when it comes to programming. Natural language tends to be very illogical, which is quite disadvantageous when it comes to programming.
Take SQL, which uses English words and almost makes grammatical sense, but has a very poor and inconsitant syntax. At Warwick University, the Computer Science course included a mandatory database module we had to sit through. We went through the syntax of SQL of course, but we also touched on a system called EDDI, that was created at Warwick and never really progressed past the theoretical phase.
EDDI was much easier to work with, despite being further removed from English than SQL was. For instance:
CREATE TABLE fruits (name CHAR(20), amount INT, price FLOAT); INSERT INTO fruits VALUES ('apple', 4, 1.99); INSERT INTO fruits VALUES ('orange', 0, 2.99); SELECT name FROM fruits WHERE amount > 0;
Whilst SQL veterans will recognise the SQL syntax more easily than the EDDI system, the EDDI system was much easier to learn. It is more logical, and requires the student to remember less. So long as the student remembers that "%" is a projection and ":" is a selection, there's little syntax errors he or she can make. Unlike SQL, in which I rarely seem to get the syntax work first time, and I've been coding SQL for much, much, much longer than EDDI.
Of course, EDDI is impractical in real life because all databases use SQL, and EDDI is little more than a test system. But it seems to me that, in terms of syntax alone, EDDI is obviously is the superior query language.
Natural language isn't necessary always good, especially when it comes to programming languages. We do not describe mathematical formulae with English words, and it doesn't make sense that we should use natural language to talk to machines that are based in mathematics and logic.
It is, of course, desirable for programmers to make their source code understandable to others, but that doesn't imply that natural language is the way to go.
"Southwestern Asia, bordering the Caspian Sea, between Iran and Russia,
with a small European portion north of the Caucasus range (Emphasis mine)
Does that qualify as "geographically" part of Europe?
The Wikipedia Europe article has a footnote that says:
"Azerbaijan and Georgia lie partly in Europe according to definitions which consider the main watershed of the Caucasus as the boundary with Asia."
Since the CIA define Azerbaijan as having a "European portion", doesn't that mean that the CIA considers Azerbaijan to lie partly in Europe? If so, then the article is entirely correct, as it only says that "according to some definitions" Azerbaijan "lie[s] partly in Europe".
Odd; in the UK there have been a lot of TV adverts for AOL Broadband that emphasise how it's the latest thing since sliced bread.
I wonder if they'll go back to dialup in the UK as well...
There seem to be a lot of rumours, but no real evidence that Microsoft will pursue this action. Getting control of TCP/IP as a protocol is a near-impossible challenge, even for Microsoft.
As another have pointed out, they could patent IP routing algoritms, but I think most of the apocalyptic vision predicted by this story is rather unlikely to ever happen.
Because road safty is in the hands of the person. It is my choice to go 100 mph down the road and create an accident of 50 or so cars in rush hour. It is another thing to be going about your business and have your air plane jacked and ramed into a building where the common man is working.
And if you killed some pedestrians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? You're more likely to be killed by someone else in a car, then you are to cause your own death through dangerous driving.
Road safety isn't just in your hands. It's in the hands of everyone who drives around you. You might be talking to some friends by your house when some nutter in a car slams into you at 100mph.
Whilst driving dangerously will increase your chances of dying on the roads, even if you drive 100% safely, and always look both ways when crossing the street, you will still have a greater chance at being killed by a car than a terrorist.
The people in the WTC were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many more people in 2001 who died on the road were also unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I really don't beleive that you just compared something that nobody had control over, such as a terorrist act, to a suicide where it only hurts one person that is them self. A suicide doesn't kill innnocent people.
I compared terrorism, which accounted for 0.1% of all US deaths in 2001, and less than 0.01% in recent years, to other methods of death, which have killed far more people than terrorists ever have.
I'd wager that more children in the US are bullied into depression and suicide, than have been killed by Islamic terrorists. More innocent bystanders have been killed by dangerous drivers than have been killed by Islamic terrorists. More Americans were killed by other Americans in 2001, than were killed by the 9/11 terrorists.
It is obvious you would rather have a president tell you he can correct something he has no power over such as traffic accidents, alcohol poisening, drug abuse, suicides, and etc, than something he has power to help protect the US (and the World) in the future from EVIL vendictive people.
No powers? Why is it that some countries have less traffic accidents than others? Perhaps the US could look to countries that have less traffic-related deaths, and look to see what they are doing better. I've driven on roads in Britain, Spain and Florida, and I'd have to rate the British roads as the safest by a large margin. It undoubtably varies from state to state, but my point is that there is considerable room for improvement.
A lot of lives could be saved through looking at road safety, though it is a subject that does not conjure the same fears as people as terrorism does, and certainly doesn't bring the same TV ratings.
Your ethics are really off and it really shows that you don't understand what is going on in todays world. And if this is the case of the things you listed up above why do liberals make a big thing about 1000 people getting killed in war, because it is obvious 3000 people killed in a terrorist act in a span of an hour isn't important so why would 1000 people matter to you.
A straw man attack; first you assume I'm a liberal, and then you assume I think the 9/11 attacks weren't important. Of course they were, but so are the other 2.5 million who died in the US that year. The 42'000 who died in car accidents. The 17'000 who were murdered by other Americans.
In addition, I should remind you that the attacks on the WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. And I should also point out that whilst only 1200 US troops have died in Iraq, anywhere between 10'000 and 37'000 civilians have died. That's assuming that the estimates are accurate, of course.
About 3000 people died in the WTC. That should not be allowed to happen again, and the terrorists responsible should be hunted down. Terrorists, who, I hasten to add, are nowhere near Ira
It's interesting that you base your vote on the actions of terrorists.
I'm curious as to why this is. As a cause of death, terrorism falls far behind diseases, traffic accidents, alcohol poisoning, drug abuse, homocides/murder, firearm accidents, drowning, accidental fire, suicides and so on.
What makes terrorism more important than, say, road safety?
Because the best way to fight a terrorist from Saudi Arabia, currently thought to be hiding inbetween Afghanistan and Pakistan, is to invade a completely unrelated country.
Clearly to capture the fiendish Osama bin Laden, US troops need to be placed hundreds of miles away from where he was last seen, in a hostile country that has no ties to bin Laden at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the physical evidence for the theory of common ancestry? Where are the missing links? In this particular case, evolution, in my opinion, flies in the face of science by ignoring some of the obvious missing pieces of evidence.
There are a number of reasons why the so-called missing link cannot be presented. Firstly, because the fossil record is incomplete; the chance of a dead animal becoming a fossil is smaller than, say, being struck by lightning. Secondly, fossils are rather difficult to find; they're buried in rock.
But lets put aside such difficulties, and look at the term "common ancestor". The so-called missing link is the ancestor that we and apes have in common. It is a mistake to assume that this missing link would look humanoid, or walk on two legs. More likely it would just appear like a large monkey, or a primative ape.
So even if scientists found the missing link, how could they tell what it was? They could classify it, give the species a name and speculate on its life and habitat, of course. But fossils are, at the end of the day, just rock. There isn't any way to tell whether man and ape are decendants of such a creature or not.
They successully exploited a vulnerability without knowing what the vulnerability was? Is this part of the if-we-stumble-around-long-enough-we'll-get-lucky-e ventually school of (cr|h)acking? :P
False, Visual Studio is widely renowned as the singular best programming environment there is, and is a large reason LOTS of programmers stick to Windows.
I'm a programmer, and the only times I use Visual Studio is when I have to. It's not really all that great, especially once you to start to explore outside the Microsoft fold.
Sure Iraq's military wasn't a threat to the US. However Iraq's money was. Just as Saddam was paying the families of homicide bombers in Israel he was sponsoring terrorism elsewhere.
I'm curious. Do you think that there are less terrorists in the world as a result of the invasion of Iraq?
It is very stupid. However, it is something of a habit for the British to ignore laws that don't make sense. Whilst the RIP bill was passed in 2000, so far as I understand it, it has never actually been used.
If Microsoft wants to build a better browser, more power to them. If open source can't compete with proprietry products, it's not really a very good development model.
However, I believe that the Mozilla team can compete with Microsoft, even if it throws its whole weight behind IE. Apache has dominated the Web Server market for some time, despite Microsoft's best efforts. Perhaps you should have a bit more faith in the Firefox developers.
Finally, despite Microsoft's "crazy hiring tests", Microsoft has always seemed to me to be a company churning out mediocre software with first rate marketing. Despite its claims to the contrary, Microsoft is not a company comfortable with innovating.
Where its illegal to 'possess any information which might be useful to a terrorist'
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but do you have a source?
An apostrophe is not normally called a "single inverted comma" in England. That said, I once had an English teacher who insisted on calling apostrophes "inverted commas".
Sin; which by definition, was created by God.
I have no problem with divine justice. The problem I have is that God appears to take a one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. A mass murderer spends an eternity in hell, but apparently so does an atheist, reguardless of what good deeds said atheist does.
A hell which was indirectly created by God.
It seems irrational to me reguardless. If God is omnipotent, why would he have to sacrifice his son in order to change a system he set up in the first place? Couldn't he just correct the problem with a raise of his hand, without resorting to putting his son through torture and a slow death?
Unfortunately, I can't have faith if there are unexplaned inconsitancies. I don't understand why there has to be sin. I don't understand why it was necessary for someone to be tortured and killed on a cross for it to be absolved. I don't understand why lack of faith warrents an eternity in hell.
Also, what becomes of all those who were born before Jesus? Or those that were born after, in remote places of the world, before planes and telephones and large ocean liners were invented? If someone lives their life without having heard of Jesus, what happens to them?
By dying and then not returning back to life? It seems to me that that would be the greater sacrifice.
Or, perhaps, by not condemning everyone who doesn't worship you to eternal torment. It's difficult for me to understand people who say that God loves me, but that He will also condemn me to burn in hell for eternity if I don't worship Him.
Perhaps you can help me clear this up a bit.
God creates Man. He creates a tree that bears fruit and says to Man, eat it and you'll die. Man doubts God, so he eats it anyway.
For this act, God comdemns Man, and all his decendants, to a slow death, followed by eternal torment in Hell. The only way for Man to escape this fate is to bow down and worship his creator.
Is this more or less correct?
Because, forgive me, but God does not seem to be acting very morally at all.
But the important thing is, God knows we can't keep his law, cuz we have inherited Adam's curse of sinfulness.
But surely it was God that made this "sinfulness" inherited. He is, after all, omnipotent; he set up this cosmic system of inherited sin. It follows that we are only punished for Adam's alleged discretion because He wills it.
The sins of the father fall onto the child, and all that.
But this does not seem moral to me at all. Why is it right to punish people for actions their ancestors committed?
On the other hand, I feel uneasy, knowning almost certainly that this isn't legal (C'mon, this is DVD Jon!).
IIRC, in Norway reverse engineering is perfectly legal, and there is no DMCA-esque law.
Remember that the Norwegion courts have ruled before that DVD Jon has not done anything illegal. If he had, you can be sure the movie industry would be on Jon like a tonne of bricks.
So you can rest well, knowing that DVD Jon's actions are probably quite legal, at least in his country. What other people do with his work in countries that have different laws, is hardly his problem.
I've had similar experiences. When the parent post is modded down to -1, to the casual reader, you go from sounding clever to sounding seriously moronic :)
I really doubt Solaris represents much of a threat to Linux. Linux has been going for over ten years, and has built up a great amount of momentum; developers aren't just going to switch from coding for their operating system of choice to work on an unfamiliar Solaris. There isn't enough incentive.
Whilst I'm sure Solaris will attract some attention, I'd guess that the majority of developers will stick with the operating system they know. Whilst Sun can throw a lot of weight behind this project, it's easier to keep an open source project moving along at speed, than it is to start a new one. I'm skeptical as to whether open-source Solaris can attract the developer attention that Linux has.
Whilst businesses are pretty much free to choose what they want, the writer seems to be suggesting that because Solaris is open source, that will somehow make it magically better. Businesses are not usually known for choosing software simply because it is open source. Unfortunately, just making a product open source is not an automatic recipe for success, otherwise Hurd would garner just as much attention as Linux.
If I'm reading the article right the software *and* the hardware is sold as a standard package. Therefore any updates can be extensively tested by the company offering the service, before being uploaded through to their client's computers.
Because the company knows that their test machines are identical to the machines used by their clients, the company offering this service can test out the updates to make sure they work. In fact, they could probably test the systems more thoroughly than an on-site admin who may have other duties.
The only problem with this is if the hardware itself breaks in one or more of the client's computers.
I think there's already an SQLEDDI piece of software that was developed at Warwick for a PhD project.
;)
This page looks like the place to go, but I doubt the software will be that usable. And I'm unsure of the license on it.
It also wouldn't my life that much easier at the moment. I use very few database queries in my software. Even PHP/MySQL projects use only a handful of queries. EDDI isn't directly translatable to SQL, either; SQL joins aren't natural by default, whilst EDDI's are.
In short, as nice as it would be, it would take more time than I'd save. If I ever find myself manipulating databases more regularly, though, I'll certainly think about an EDDI interpretor
I'm somewhat skeptical of reports talking about the place of natural language when it comes to programming. Natural language tends to be very illogical, which is quite disadvantageous when it comes to programming.
Take SQL, which uses English words and almost makes grammatical sense, but has a very poor and inconsitant syntax. At Warwick University, the Computer Science course included a mandatory database module we had to sit through. We went through the syntax of SQL of course, but we also touched on a system called EDDI, that was created at Warwick and never really progressed past the theoretical phase.
EDDI was much easier to work with, despite being further removed from English than SQL was. For instance:
CREATE TABLE fruits (name CHAR(20), amount INT, price FLOAT);
INSERT INTO fruits VALUES ('apple', 4, 1.99);
INSERT INTO fruits VALUES ('orange', 0, 2.99);
SELECT name FROM fruits WHERE amount > 0;
And:
fruits (name CHAR(20), amount INT, price FLOAT);
fruits << ["apple", 4, 1.99], ["orange", 0, 2.99]
fruits : amount > 0 % name
Whilst SQL veterans will recognise the SQL syntax more easily than the EDDI system, the EDDI system was much easier to learn. It is more logical, and requires the student to remember less. So long as the student remembers that "%" is a projection and ":" is a selection, there's little syntax errors he or she can make. Unlike SQL, in which I rarely seem to get the syntax work first time, and I've been coding SQL for much, much, much longer than EDDI.
Of course, EDDI is impractical in real life because all databases use SQL, and EDDI is little more than a test system. But it seems to me that, in terms of syntax alone, EDDI is obviously is the superior query language.
Natural language isn't necessary always good, especially when it comes to programming languages. We do not describe mathematical formulae with English words, and it doesn't make sense that we should use natural language to talk to machines that are based in mathematics and logic.
It is, of course, desirable for programmers to make their source code understandable to others, but that doesn't imply that natural language is the way to go.
Does that qualify as "geographically" part of Europe?
The Wikipedia Europe article has a footnote that says:
Since the CIA define Azerbaijan as having a "European portion", doesn't that mean that the CIA considers Azerbaijan to lie partly in Europe? If so, then the article is entirely correct, as it only says that "according to some definitions" Azerbaijan "lie[s] partly in Europe".
Odd; in the UK there have been a lot of TV adverts for AOL Broadband that emphasise how it's the latest thing since sliced bread. I wonder if they'll go back to dialup in the UK as well...
There seem to be a lot of rumours, but no real evidence that Microsoft will pursue this action. Getting control of TCP/IP as a protocol is a near-impossible challenge, even for Microsoft.
As another have pointed out, they could patent IP routing algoritms, but I think most of the apocalyptic vision predicted by this story is rather unlikely to ever happen.
At least, I hope so!
Because road safty is in the hands of the person. It is my choice to go 100 mph down the road and create an accident of 50 or so cars in rush hour. It is another thing to be going about your business and have your air plane jacked and ramed into a building where the common man is working.
And if you killed some pedestrians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? You're more likely to be killed by someone else in a car, then you are to cause your own death through dangerous driving.
Road safety isn't just in your hands. It's in the hands of everyone who drives around you. You might be talking to some friends by your house when some nutter in a car slams into you at 100mph.
Whilst driving dangerously will increase your chances of dying on the roads, even if you drive 100% safely, and always look both ways when crossing the street, you will still have a greater chance at being killed by a car than a terrorist.
The people in the WTC were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many more people in 2001 who died on the road were also unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I really don't beleive that you just compared something that nobody had control over, such as a terorrist act, to a suicide where it only hurts one person that is them self. A suicide doesn't kill innnocent people.
I compared terrorism, which accounted for 0.1% of all US deaths in 2001, and less than 0.01% in recent years, to other methods of death, which have killed far more people than terrorists ever have.
I'd wager that more children in the US are bullied into depression and suicide, than have been killed by Islamic terrorists. More innocent bystanders have been killed by dangerous drivers than have been killed by Islamic terrorists. More Americans were killed by other Americans in 2001, than were killed by the 9/11 terrorists.
It is obvious you would rather have a president tell you he can correct something he has no power over such as traffic accidents, alcohol poisening, drug abuse, suicides, and etc, than something he has power to help protect the US (and the World) in the future from EVIL vendictive people.
No powers? Why is it that some countries have less traffic accidents than others? Perhaps the US could look to countries that have less traffic-related deaths, and look to see what they are doing better. I've driven on roads in Britain, Spain and Florida, and I'd have to rate the British roads as the safest by a large margin. It undoubtably varies from state to state, but my point is that there is considerable room for improvement.
A lot of lives could be saved through looking at road safety, though it is a subject that does not conjure the same fears as people as terrorism does, and certainly doesn't bring the same TV ratings.
Your ethics are really off and it really shows that you don't understand what is going on in todays world. And if this is the case of the things you listed up above why do liberals make a big thing about 1000 people getting killed in war, because it is obvious 3000 people killed in a terrorist act in a span of an hour isn't important so why would 1000 people matter to you.
A straw man attack; first you assume I'm a liberal, and then you assume I think the 9/11 attacks weren't important. Of course they were, but so are the other 2.5 million who died in the US that year. The 42'000 who died in car accidents. The 17'000 who were murdered by other Americans.
In addition, I should remind you that the attacks on the WTC had nothing to do with Iraq. And I should also point out that whilst only 1200 US troops have died in Iraq, anywhere between 10'000 and 37'000 civilians have died. That's assuming that the estimates are accurate, of course.
About 3000 people died in the WTC. That should not be allowed to happen again, and the terrorists responsible should be hunted down. Terrorists, who, I hasten to add, are nowhere near Ira
It's interesting that you base your vote on the actions of terrorists.
I'm curious as to why this is. As a cause of death, terrorism falls far behind diseases, traffic accidents, alcohol poisoning, drug abuse, homocides/murder, firearm accidents, drowning, accidental fire, suicides and so on.
What makes terrorism more important than, say, road safety?
Because the best way to fight a terrorist from Saudi Arabia, currently thought to be hiding inbetween Afghanistan and Pakistan, is to invade a completely unrelated country.
Clearly to capture the fiendish Osama bin Laden, US troops need to be placed hundreds of miles away from where he was last seen, in a hostile country that has no ties to bin Laden at all.
My guess is that more hosting firms offer MySQL than PostgreSQL. If I'm correct, then it would make sense for them to appeal to the wider audience.