I'm no expert on fusion, but I was once told that getting an extremely high temperature (to "kick the reaction off") was the reason fusion was not in practice, b/c the energy required too to get the temperature for starting the reaction was too high to achieve efficiently.
Depending on how they got that temperature, it is quite possible that the new breakthrough would enable them to get fusion working.
But if they cannot reproduce the effect then it's for nothing.
Personally I think we need to expand Homeland Security, not reduce it.
If expanded, the Dept of Homeland Security could make sure our zippers are all zipped up, make sure our garage doors are closed when we leave the house, reduce the amount of noise pollution and review all the bogus parking tickets I've gotten over my life and reimburse me 90% due to past years of unconstitutional kangaroo court process.
There really should be a list of politicians who have submitted such bills; that way we can be sure that we don't vote for the police state mongers.. at least not a second time.
Which already tanked, but was an open source floppy disk firewall-router-telnet-ssh installation that could run on a 486 with a single floppy and 2 network cards.
Somebody bought it out. How? IDK, since it was an open source public domain type project.
I'm sure there could still be some floppies of it.
>Yes, let us just put down the science textbooks, they >don't conform to the bible. Do you really think that >this helps at all?
I didn't advocate doing any such thing. It sounds like you are making a strawman, calling it "mine," and then beating it up.
>You're using OCCOM'S RAZOR for proof!? What the heck >kind of reasoning is that? There's half a dozen >anti-razors for that statement. Besides, who is to say >Creation is the simpl est solution? SEriously, try >explaining how he created all that matter. Hmm, that'd >make it pretty darn complex, go figure. "
My claim was that the foundation of scientific principle relies an assumption like occom's razor: that the rational mind observes phenomena, forms possible explanations, develops "incisive" experiments, then those experiments are conducted, and the rational mind draws conclusions.. all that is the scientific method. without occom's razor it would be a much larger challenge to draw conclusions. For that reason, i venture, occom's razor is built into the method itself. If the razor weren't part of the method then slam-dunk conclusions couldn't be fully clinched, because there would be too many "potiential," "incidental" and "unlikely" explanations.
>God's wrath? Hah, what is to say what is god and what is >chance? Soddom and Gomora hasn't happened here yet.
I'm happy for you, that you haven't had your own personal Soddom and Gomora. I did years in a pit of Hell; demons are real; I've seen them first hand.
>None denies that NOT being descended from chimps would >be ofar more comforting. HOwever, what's 'nice' doesn't >concern science. We go for the truth, no more.
Your life has not presented you with the opportunity to see that human primate evolution is false. Eventually we all get the chance? I don't know, but the parable of Jesus and the blind man comes to mind.
That's funny you mention "going for" the truth, since today I'm WEARING a shirt that says "TRUTH".
Here it is, the TRUTH: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
From your statement, I assume you don't agree with Darwinian theory (perhaps for religious reasons). However, I'll make the observation that Jesus said never to retaliate, and to love your enemy. And besides, Darwin wasn't even your enemy. I lose my temper sometimes. I can't blame you, but if you're gonna stand up for Jesus then try to maintain his principles.
Anyhow, Darwin was the first to theorize into the domain of "speciation," a natural process by means of which new and distinct species could be formed.
Speciation doesn't contradict religion. It makes perfect sense. Let's say we have a hypothetical flock of birds, all the same "species." Some of them have longer thinner bills, suited to eating bugs in holes, and others have thicker bills suited to breaking through the shells of crawdads. If they crossbreed with each other then their bills aren't suited to either purpose, so the hybrids die (because they live in a hypothetical environment with no intermediate food options). OK? But the ones that keep breeding with their own kind produce viable offspring. Darwin's theory postulates that over time that flock would become 2 distinct species, because, any time the flock's members crossbred, the offspring wouldn't be viable. That's an example of one type of speciation.
What's the problem with that? It does nothing to rattle my religious faith.
OK, great, now what you're asking is why did some of the religious folks get upset about evolution? I suppose the real clash happens in 3 main cases: (1) the spark of life, (2) the origin of Man, (3) the general categories of species:
(1) (a) When scientists try to explain that first spark of life with chemical science, without any action/agency from the LORD, it is flatly contradictory to Biblical doctrine. (b) Furthermore, the time scale involved in the chemical explanation of the first-spark-of-life is fully inconsistent with the biblical account of the earth's age. (c) I can see why it would be irritating to a religious person that a scientist would try to fully deprive the LORD of the credit he deserves for the miraculous thing called life. (But the pure scientist wants to use "occom's razor"..?)
(2) The Bible says that the LORD created man. (AND I believe it). Some popular Anthropological hypotheses claim that mankind shares a common ancestor with monkeys and apes. Personally, I don't need it. I'm happy with creation, and i've seen God's wrath in my own life. For that reason I wouldn't promote doctrine which encouraged a person to think of himself as the descendant of a protomonkey. (funny, I just wrote a post called the Evolution Grackels ; I had the above hypothesis in mind when I wrote it)
(3) The Bible specified that during the time of the creation, on certain days, the LORD created particular types of animals (all the fish on one day, all the birds on another, etc). I don't see any reason why speciation couldn't happen after-the-fact of creation. In fact, in the book of revelations, all kinds of die-offs are prophesied to occur.
Well anyhow that's my exampination of the contrast between evolutionary and Christian doctrine. I didn't think I'd be writing an essay.
if they were truly God's grackels then they'd keep on coming back like an alfred hitchcock nightmare. and i guess that's what they did.
anyhow it's just one campus so how could it be intended for international example? now if ALL the evolution classes at all the campuses were packed with Evolution Grackels, well, hey, THAT would be something i'd enjoy watching. =D
I used to attend school at UT Austin, and there were some trees in front of the anthropology building. Something in those trees drew in grackels from miles around. It was the only building on campus haunted like that.
There must've been 150 or 200 grackels roosted, spewing a cacaphony of vulgar bird chirps and bird-caca under those few trees. MAN, how it stank.
Every year they'd scare em off with shotguns and rock salt, but year after year those grackels just kept coming back to the front of the anthropology building.
Well I was an atheist at the time, and an evolutionist. I thought anthropolgy was a neat field, and an honest one.
Decide for yourself, but since then I've learned to recognize a clear sign from God.
I wouldn't call them sellouts that quickly. We have a bill of rights in the USA, and that protects Google's legal resistance to federal intrusion; I don't know WHAT they have in China.
Now, hypothetically, let's just say Google decided NOT to censor its search content to China. Then China would most likely respond by blocking ALL google content. And THEN what would you say about google's actions with regard to civil rights? "If ONLY they'd sold out a little then they could have prevented an even larger censorship."
As it is, a determined user could probably use Google to get around the censorship. On the other hand, if Google were blocked entirely, then it wouldn't even exist as a resource of potential circumvention.
right?
I hate federal snooping and censorship, too, man, but you can consider the facts, and in this case I believe they vindicate Google.
I don't know how well the Newt OS compares to modern Zaurus OS, but Newton OS was very good, and it is most likely still suitable to today's needs. The handwriting recognition was good, as were all the pda features. You could record (lots of) voice into it. It would have been useful to people like attorneys organizing recorded testimony. It supported pictures and internet via modem. It had a book reader, which I enjoyed using. Games. Lots of other stuff too.
The OS is not the reason the product failed. It failed because the Newton business model was not consistent with the Newton's hardware/utility model.
The Newton was designed to be a replacement for a pad of paper at business meetings, with the advantage that the infrared feature allowed for efficient data dissemination between Newtons. For that reason, the "Newton vision" worked best if enough people HAD Newtons. Other applications would have been "field computer" for researchers, doctors or soldiers.
But the Newton was too expensive ($600-$1000, 1997), it was a little too large/heavy, and for all its processing speed (strongarm 166 Mhz risc) it didn't have a COLOR touchscreen. At the time, Palm had 1/2 to 1/3 the size, less cpu, less hardware features, and 1/2 to 1/3 the price. So Palm captured the low end, and laptops took the high end. Newton's nich just never caught on.
That's a postmortem of the product. The cost of the hardware design didn't work with the business model because the utility nich was too narrow. That's what set it back.
Newt OS was lovely, and had nothing to do with the demise of the product.
>"So the RIAA did $12 billion in sales last year (link [cirpa.ca]) >That's *total* of all sales, including sales of downloads. In >comparison, General Motors had $193 billion in revenue." > >You tell me which one's the real "great economic asset".
Revenue is not an indicator that the industry is an asset; revenue is (part of) what the industry COSTS.
Allegedly, the DHS took the library book with them. It is not illegal to own that (or any other?) book, and the book was not evidence of any crime.
Communism: A political theory which states that, among other things, everything within national boundaries belongs to the government, and can be seized for the good of the people.
Soviet Communism: And we get to spy on you, too.
DHS: "We came down here to see what you're up to, so we're gonna take your library book."
The Bible, The Hadith, The Torah: "Thou shallt not steal." The U.S. Constitution: Governemnt can't take your property without compensating you. The Law: Stealing is a crime.
Ironically the DHS comes out looking like the communists whose book they allegedly suppressed.
Protecting the U.S. Constitution does not authorise the government to suppress political opinions. Such a suppression would be unconstitutional.
MW? No, the article says 100 kW. Here is the relevant passage (unedited).
"Calculations suggest that a helicon double layer thruster would take up a little more space than the main electric thruster on ESA's SMART-1 mission, yet it could potentially deliver many times more thrust at higher powers of up to 100 kW whilst giving a similar fuel efficiency."
Where's the outrage coming from? Once you bought into license plates, registration, driver's licenses and credit checks, you already submitted a substantial portion of your privacy to "the man."
The truth is you gave up more liberty by BUYING the car.
Every car owning American is wearing the same slave's yolk: Working to pay for insurance, license, registration, maintenance, car payments, tickets, gasoline, oil, deductibles.
Assume that's $530 a month x 12 = $6360 a year, and if you're earning $32k a year then it's 20% of your time and income.
To pay that hefty fee you work, and they tax you another 15%-35%.
Work time + tax time = 20% + 15%-35% = 35% - 55%. OF YOUR TIME AND MONEY. THAT is where your liberty went. YOUR CAR ATE IT.
Throw in noise pollution, "the war on terror," and wasted urban space as second tier expenses. Your neighbors bear those with you, whether they own cars or not.
If you've already "sold out" on all those levels, why would you be so upset about the incidental tagging of your car? That you cannot break the speed limit anymore? Is that "liberty" above all the others, which you already sold?
History demonstrated already that such things are NOT above the realm of political realisties.
>>You say the election looks tampered (which one? any evidence),
Both. In the first one, the Florida elections were fishy to say the least, especially considering that Bush's own cousin is governor of that state. In the second one, I only know one one single person who voted for Bush. Meanwhile the electronic voting machines of the reelection lead me to suspect it -- there is no paper trail and I only know ONE PERSON who voted for him.
>>imply that Bush caused 9/11 so he could solidify his power (he was already the >>President) and that he started the war in Iraq to train the troops to start a >>totalitarian state here.
Hitler was already chancellor of the Weimar Republic when the Reichstag was burnt under suspicious circumstances. Hitler used the event as an opportunity to crack down on all political opposition, and tighten nazi power.
The analogy I made was between things such as the Guantanamo Bay detention and torture events, the Patriot Act, the constriction of press access to Iraq, the pressure to use the FBI to infiltrate WTO and war protests groups, the secret trials and secret detentions of "enemy combatants," they were denied both geneva convention and constitutional rights. Bush classified those he captured as undeserving of any rights, and then they were tortured and humiliated in holding cells. Keep in mind most of them were completely uninvolved -- just random afghanis who were blissfully ignorant free men before 911.
Meanwhile the unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were used to request more military spending -- that was bolstered further by the decision to send less military personel than available to help New Orleans. You really believe Bush left so few guardsmen in the USA that we needed to import mexican army to help in the salvage? OH Yea, WE JUST DONT HAVE THE TROOPS TO PROTECT OUR OWN COUNTRY. Hell why doesn't Mexico just invade. Or even equador?
It is easy to see through the bush baloney. It is all posturing. Just look for it. What's to gain? Military spending and an international "antiterror" strike force with free license to search anything and do anything and then hide behind the mask of (inter)national security.
That's really handy when the corporations you represent want labor movements suppressed.
You dont think he'd push for such things? Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is blasting Metallica at volume 10 to chained prisoners in a Guantanamo Bay military prison -- people who dont exist, haven't been charged with anything, cannot talk to reporters, and cannot even talk to their own lawyers. All in the name of national security.
Yes, I believe the Hitler analogy is a strong one. I suspect his dad is running the country. Getting his new world order.
Has it ever occurred to you that the war on terror's refined capacities to detect explosives could also be used to suppress a "rebellious" majority population? (that is to say, to enforce a dictatorship in the USA?)
Just pointing out that the Bush administration has made more war against civil liberties, privacy and personal freedoms than any administration in my lifetime, and that Bush's election really looked like it was tampered, and that the 911 incident LOOKS ALOT LIKE HITLER'S RISE TO POWER. (read about the BURNING OF THE REICHSTAG)
The patriot act is just that -- a bunch of right wing police state warmongers taking away our privacy and then ACTING as if they were patriots in the process. That is to say, the patriot act is just that: an ACT.
And terror suppression in Iraq would also train the American military to suppress pro freedom American partisans.
To be honest, the term "homeland security" just makes the country feel less like my own home. It has a vague nuerolinguistic programming sound to it. It sounds antiforeign and hyperguarded. For starters, no American uses the term "homeland."
I really don't like bombs, but if the govt turns against us then those bombs detected with the new tech would just be the "friendly" ones.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no expert on fusion, but I was once told that getting an extremely high temperature (to "kick the reaction off") was the reason fusion was not in practice, b/c the energy required too to get the temperature for starting the reaction was too high to achieve efficiently.
Depending on how they got that temperature, it is quite possible that the new breakthrough would enable them to get fusion working.
But if they cannot reproduce the effect then it's for nothing.
Personally I think we need to expand Homeland Security, not reduce it.
If expanded, the Dept of Homeland Security could make sure our zippers are all zipped up, make sure our garage doors are closed when we leave the house, reduce the amount of noise pollution and review all the bogus parking tickets I've gotten over my life and reimburse me 90% due to past years of unconstitutional kangaroo court process.
There really should be a list of politicians who have submitted such bills; that way we can be sure that we don't vote for the police state mongers.. at least not a second time.
the project halted as the main developer stopped working on it due to lack of funds.
i couldn't get the ftp site to share legacy files to me either. =\
Linux Router Project
Which already tanked, but was an open source floppy disk firewall-router-telnet-ssh installation that could run on a 486 with a single floppy and 2 network cards.
Somebody bought it out. How? IDK, since it was an open source public domain type project.
I'm sure there could still be some floppies of it.
>>Just one of the reasons "..."
repent of blashpemy while you can. it's no joke.
>Yes, let us just put down the science textbooks, they
>don't conform to the bible. Do you really think that
>this helps at all?
I didn't advocate doing any such thing. It sounds like you are making a strawman, calling it "mine," and then beating it up.
>You're using OCCOM'S RAZOR for proof!? What the heck
>kind of reasoning is that? There's half a dozen
>anti-razors for that statement. Besides, who is to say
>Creation is the simpl est solution? SEriously, try
>explaining how he created all that matter. Hmm, that'd
>make it pretty darn complex, go figure. "
My claim was that the foundation of scientific principle relies an assumption like occom's razor: that the rational mind observes phenomena, forms possible explanations, develops "incisive" experiments, then those experiments are conducted, and the rational mind draws conclusions.. all that is the scientific method. without occom's razor it would be a much larger challenge to draw conclusions. For that reason, i venture, occom's razor is built into the method itself. If the razor weren't part of the method then slam-dunk conclusions couldn't be fully clinched, because there would be too many "potiential," "incidental" and "unlikely" explanations.
>God's wrath? Hah, what is to say what is god and what is
>chance? Soddom and Gomora hasn't happened here yet.
I'm happy for you, that you haven't had your own personal Soddom and Gomora. I did years in a pit of Hell; demons are real; I've seen them first hand.
>None denies that NOT being descended from chimps would
>be ofar more comforting. HOwever, what's 'nice' doesn't
>concern science. We go for the truth, no more.
Your life has not presented you with the opportunity to see that human primate evolution is false. Eventually we all get the chance? I don't know, but the parable of Jesus and the blind man comes to mind.
That's funny you mention "going for" the truth, since today I'm WEARING a shirt that says "TRUTH".
Here it is, the TRUTH: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16
From your statement, I assume you don't agree with Darwinian theory (perhaps for religious reasons). However, I'll make the observation that Jesus said never to retaliate, and to love your enemy. And besides, Darwin wasn't even your enemy. I lose my temper sometimes. I can't blame you, but if you're gonna stand up for Jesus then try to maintain his principles.
Anyhow, Darwin was the first to theorize into the domain of "speciation," a natural process by means of which new and distinct species could be formed.
Speciation doesn't contradict religion. It makes perfect sense. Let's say we have a hypothetical flock of birds, all the same "species." Some of them have longer thinner bills, suited to eating bugs in holes, and others have thicker bills suited to breaking through the shells of crawdads. If they crossbreed with each other then their bills aren't suited to either purpose, so the hybrids die (because they live in a hypothetical environment with no intermediate food options). OK? But the ones that keep breeding with their own kind produce viable offspring. Darwin's theory postulates that over time that flock would become 2 distinct species, because, any time the flock's members crossbred, the offspring wouldn't be viable. That's an example of one type of speciation.
What's the problem with that? It does nothing to rattle my religious faith.
OK, great, now what you're asking is why did some of the religious folks get upset about evolution? I suppose the real clash happens in 3 main cases: (1) the spark of life, (2) the origin of Man, (3) the general categories of species:
(1)
(a) When scientists try to explain that first spark of life with chemical science, without any action/agency from the LORD, it is flatly contradictory to Biblical doctrine.
(b) Furthermore, the time scale involved in the chemical explanation of the first-spark-of-life is fully inconsistent with the biblical account of the earth's age.
(c) I can see why it would be irritating to a religious person that a scientist would try to fully deprive the LORD of the credit he deserves for the miraculous thing called life. (But the pure scientist wants to use "occom's razor"..?)
(2) The Bible says that the LORD created man. (AND I believe it). Some popular Anthropological hypotheses claim that mankind shares a common ancestor with monkeys and apes. Personally, I don't need it. I'm happy with creation, and i've seen God's wrath in my own life. For that reason I wouldn't promote doctrine which encouraged a person to think of himself as the descendant of a protomonkey. (funny, I just wrote a post called the Evolution Grackels ; I had the above hypothesis in mind when I wrote it)
(3) The Bible specified that during the time of the creation, on certain days, the LORD created particular types of animals (all the fish on one day, all the birds on another, etc). I don't see any reason why speciation couldn't happen after-the-fact of creation. In fact, in the book of revelations, all kinds of die-offs are prophesied to occur.
Well anyhow that's my exampination of the contrast between evolutionary and Christian doctrine. I didn't think I'd be writing an essay.
prepostrous, perhaps, but not ridiculous.
lol
if they were truly God's grackels then they'd keep on coming back like an alfred hitchcock nightmare. and i guess that's what they did.
anyhow it's just one campus so how could it be intended for international example? now if ALL the evolution classes at all the campuses were packed with Evolution Grackels, well, hey, THAT would be something i'd enjoy watching. =D
>What does that have to do with God?
It has nothing to do with God, however I take the sign to be an expression of God's opinion on the topic of human evolution.
I used to attend school at UT Austin, and there were some trees in front of the anthropology building. Something in those trees drew in grackels from miles around. It was the only building on campus haunted like that.
There must've been 150 or 200 grackels roosted, spewing a cacaphony of vulgar bird chirps and bird-caca under those few trees. MAN, how it stank.
Every year they'd scare em off with shotguns and rock salt, but year after year those grackels just kept coming back to the front of the anthropology building.
Well I was an atheist at the time, and an evolutionist. I thought anthropolgy was a neat field, and an honest one.
Decide for yourself, but since then I've learned to recognize a clear sign from God.
I wouldn't call them sellouts that quickly. We have a bill of rights in the USA, and that protects Google's legal resistance to federal intrusion; I don't know WHAT they have in China.
Now, hypothetically, let's just say Google decided NOT to censor its search content to China. Then China would most likely respond by blocking ALL google content. And THEN what would you say about google's actions with regard to civil rights? "If ONLY they'd sold out a little then they could have prevented an even larger censorship."
As it is, a determined user could probably use Google to get around the censorship. On the other hand, if Google were blocked entirely, then it wouldn't even exist as a resource of potential circumvention.
right?
I hate federal snooping and censorship, too, man, but you can consider the facts, and in this case I believe they vindicate Google.
Suuuuuuuure. For all I know, YOU are one of the new "small microsoft" agents-for-hire.
=D
I don't know how well the Newt OS compares to modern Zaurus OS, but Newton OS was very good, and it is most likely still suitable to today's needs. The handwriting recognition was good, as were all the pda features. You could record (lots of) voice into it. It would have been useful to people like attorneys organizing recorded testimony. It supported pictures and internet via modem. It had a book reader, which I enjoyed using. Games. Lots of other stuff too.
The OS is not the reason the product failed. It failed because the Newton business model was not consistent with the Newton's hardware/utility model.
The Newton was designed to be a replacement for a pad of paper at business meetings, with the advantage that the infrared feature allowed for efficient data dissemination between Newtons. For that reason, the "Newton vision" worked best if enough people HAD Newtons. Other applications would have been "field computer" for researchers, doctors or soldiers.
But the Newton was too expensive ($600-$1000, 1997), it was a little too large/heavy, and for all its processing speed (strongarm 166 Mhz risc) it didn't have a COLOR touchscreen. At the time, Palm had 1/2 to 1/3 the size, less cpu, less hardware features, and 1/2 to 1/3 the price. So Palm captured the low end, and laptops took the high end. Newton's nich just never caught on.
That's a postmortem of the product. The cost of the hardware design didn't work with the business model because the utility nich was too narrow. That's what set it back.
Newt OS was lovely, and had nothing to do with the demise of the product.
If it's a good invention.
>"So the RIAA did $12 billion in sales last year (link [cirpa.ca])
>That's *total* of all sales, including sales of downloads. In
>comparison, General Motors had $193 billion in revenue."
>
>You tell me which one's the real "great economic asset".
Revenue is not an indicator that the industry is an asset; revenue is (part of) what the industry COSTS.
Allegedly, the DHS took the library book with them. It is not illegal to own that (or any other?) book, and the book was not evidence of any crime.
Communism: A political theory which states that, among other things, everything within national boundaries belongs to the government, and can be seized for the good of the people.
Soviet Communism: And we get to spy on you, too.
DHS: "We came down here to see what you're up to, so we're gonna take your library book."
The Bible, The Hadith, The Torah: "Thou shallt not steal."
The U.S. Constitution: Governemnt can't take your property without compensating you.
The Law: Stealing is a crime.
Ironically the DHS comes out looking like the communists whose book they allegedly suppressed.
Protecting the U.S. Constitution does not authorise the government to suppress political opinions. Such a suppression would be unconstitutional.
MW? No, the article says 100 kW. Here is the relevant passage (unedited).
"Calculations suggest that a helicon double layer thruster would take up a little more space than the main electric thruster on ESA's SMART-1 mission, yet it could potentially deliver many times more thrust at higher powers of up to 100 kW whilst giving a similar fuel efficiency."
Does that mean my beer will stay cold 6 times longer, too?
Where's the outrage coming from? Once you bought into license plates, registration, driver's licenses and credit checks, you already submitted a substantial portion of your privacy to "the man."
The truth is you gave up more liberty by BUYING the car.
Every car owning American is wearing the same slave's yolk: Working to pay for insurance, license, registration, maintenance, car payments, tickets, gasoline, oil, deductibles.
Assume that's $530 a month x 12 = $6360 a year, and if you're earning $32k a year then it's 20% of your time and income.
To pay that hefty fee you work, and they tax you another 15%-35%.
Work time + tax time = 20% + 15%-35% = 35% - 55%.
OF YOUR TIME AND MONEY.
THAT is where your liberty went.
YOUR CAR ATE IT.
Throw in noise pollution, "the war on terror," and wasted urban space as second tier expenses. Your neighbors bear those with you, whether they own cars or not.
If you've already "sold out" on all those levels, why would you be so upset about the incidental tagging of your car? That you cannot break the speed limit anymore? Is that "liberty" above all the others, which you already sold?
This autosurgeon can already do the same thing without any human instructions.
http://agdb.net.ru/images/system_shock_1.jpg
i built that same bridge already in the demo version of railroad tycoon 3. =D
0 0-7496_4-10242381.html
(free download of the game)
http://www.download.com/Railroad-Tycoon-3-demo/30
History demonstrated already that such things are NOT above the realm of political realisties.
>>You say the election looks tampered (which one? any evidence),
Both. In the first one, the Florida elections were fishy to say the least, especially considering that Bush's own cousin is governor of that state. In the second one, I only know one one single person who voted for Bush. Meanwhile the electronic voting machines of the reelection lead me to suspect it -- there is no paper trail and I only know ONE PERSON who voted for him.
>>imply that Bush caused 9/11 so he could solidify his power (he was already the
>>President) and that he started the war in Iraq to train the troops to start a
>>totalitarian state here.
Hitler was already chancellor of the Weimar Republic when the Reichstag was burnt under suspicious circumstances. Hitler used the event as an opportunity to crack down on all political opposition, and tighten nazi power.
The analogy I made was between things such as the Guantanamo Bay detention and torture events, the Patriot Act, the constriction of press access to Iraq, the pressure to use the FBI to infiltrate WTO and war protests groups, the secret trials and secret detentions of "enemy combatants," they were denied both geneva convention and constitutional rights. Bush classified those he captured as undeserving of any rights, and then they were tortured and humiliated in holding cells. Keep in mind most of them were completely uninvolved -- just random afghanis who were blissfully ignorant free men before 911.
Meanwhile the unjust wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were used to request more military spending -- that was bolstered further by the decision to send less military personel than available to help New Orleans. You really believe Bush left so few guardsmen in the USA that we needed to import mexican army to help in the salvage? OH Yea, WE JUST DONT HAVE THE TROOPS TO PROTECT OUR OWN COUNTRY. Hell why doesn't Mexico just invade. Or even equador?
It is easy to see through the bush baloney. It is all posturing. Just look for it. What's to gain? Military spending and an international "antiterror" strike force with free license to search anything and do anything and then hide behind the mask of (inter)national security.
That's really handy when the corporations you represent want labor movements suppressed.
You dont think he'd push for such things? Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is blasting Metallica at volume 10 to chained prisoners in a Guantanamo Bay military prison -- people who dont exist, haven't been charged with anything, cannot talk to reporters, and cannot even talk to their own lawyers. All in the name of national security.
Yes, I believe the Hitler analogy is a strong one. I suspect his dad is running the country. Getting his new world order.
Has it ever occurred to you that the war on terror's refined capacities to detect explosives could also be used to suppress a "rebellious" majority population? (that is to say, to enforce a dictatorship in the USA?)
Just pointing out that the Bush administration has made more war against civil liberties, privacy and personal freedoms than any administration in my lifetime, and that Bush's election really looked like it was tampered, and that the 911 incident LOOKS ALOT LIKE HITLER'S RISE TO POWER. (read about the BURNING OF THE REICHSTAG)
http://www.shoaheducation.com/reichstag.html
The patriot act is just that -- a bunch of right wing police state warmongers taking away our privacy and then ACTING as if they were patriots in the process. That is to say, the patriot act is just that: an ACT.
And terror suppression in Iraq would also train the American military to suppress pro freedom American partisans.
To be honest, the term "homeland security" just makes the country feel less like my own home. It has a vague nuerolinguistic programming sound to it. It sounds antiforeign and hyperguarded. For starters, no American uses the term "homeland."
I really don't like bombs, but if the govt turns against us then those bombs detected with the new tech would just be the "friendly" ones.