I take it from your comment that you are a drug user yourself. Drugs are not a victemless crime. Do you have any idea the number of other crimes are committed to support drug habits?
I take it from your comment that you are an idiot who does not have basic reasoning skills. I don't do drugs myself and would not even if they were legalized. However, I don't consider it any of my business if someone wants to on their own. It's simply none of my concern how someone else wants to live their lives. And crimes to support drug habits wouldn't exist if (some) drugs weren't illegal. You don't see alcoholics knocking over convenience stores so they can buy a fifth of vodka, do you?
Someone just needs to 'leak' that one of those archived emails contains a transcript of Osama bin Laden endorsing Barack Obama for president.
Nah, OBL will just release another video tape before the election endorsing Barack Obama (or Hillary) so John McCain can win. You know, you always help out your friends. Although, as another idea, why hasn't OBL released a "greatest hits" video? He surely has enough material by now.
does anyone realize the only actualy classified or beyond is not even accessible from the internet?
Oh, damnit, there you go again, interjecting facts into this. You don't understand. This is slashdot. We don't need facts! We need sensationalism and sheer, unadulterated panic. That's why it's called "News for Nerds". The news gives us panicky, psychotic bullshit. Slashdot also gives us panicky, psychotic bullshit, but panicky, psychotic bullshit for nerds. Also, it's duped as often as you see stories duped on CNN Headline News.
Well, there is a short discussion of it in the Criticism section of this page. I imagine the planes are more along the lines of private jet aircraft, rather than huge 747's of big cargo planes. Plus, there is the whole supporting murderous dictators for fun and profit angle that belies the whole "man of God" myth that Robertson tries to perpetuate.
There are minor, but vocal group in the US of Bible literalists. This phenomena is mostly as US one.
They are also very well financed, which is key to making them extremely vocal. People like Pat Robertson have boatloads of money not just due to donations made to their ministries, but also to shady pyramid schemes (like some vitamin scheme he ran) and profits made from African diamond mines. The planes used in "Project Blessing" (I believe it is called) are (were?) used mostly to carry cargo from African diamond mines. Once in a blue moon they would be used for the stated purpose, thus letting them be a tax write off.
How about we narrow it to scientific circles that have anything at all to do with evolution? Everyone else (like an Astronomy profesor) is just the general public as far as evolution in science is concerned, pure apeal to (false) authority.
True. I had an electrical engineering professor try to argue Creationism with me. He couldn't quite grasp that having a Ph.D. in EE did not magically give him expertise in Evolutionary Biology and Cosmology. His arguments (same old rehashed ones you can find at the Discovery Institute) could be easily taken apart. But, to his credit, he didn't do what most of them do and throw random one line bits of garbage that show such a lack of understanding of the basic principles that it would take at least an entire textbook to even begin to explain it to them (assuming they would even listen). He actually paused and said something to the effect of "Hmm, I hadn't thought of it that way."
But this is part of the problem with debating Creationists. They set up the argument not for the sake of rational, logical discussion. Rather, they set up the arguments in a "zinger" format. Cheap shots and short, nice-sounding answers win the day, while complex explanations of the subject matter get drowned out in about two sentences. It is really the intellectual equivalent of flinging dung. They are simply interested in "winning" the argument rather than discussing the issues. You can't win against someone whose sole debate tactic is to fling dung at you. You only wind up with shit all over you.
Someone has been giving the authoritarians mod points lately, me thinks.
I was wondering about that lately. It seems like the Bushbots have shitloads of mod points now. If anyone says anything even slightly critical of Bush or neo-Cons or the police, they get modded into oblivion. Perhaps Zonk or kdawson has developed a taste for fascism and Charlie Chaplin mustaches.
Whenever a law is found unconstitutional, each and every politician who voted for it should have his right revoked to be part of the parliament and never be able to be a candidate in any election again.
But, then they wouldn't be able to pass as many laws. They would have to read the full text of the bills in detail and study the legal and constitutional aspects of what they are voting for. They would have to openly discuss the substance of the bill, rather than relying on bullshit and catchy phrases. Madness, I tell you! Madness!
Actually, the sad thing is that the Onion tends to predict things more accurately than the pundits. I mean, they even predicted how the Bush presidency would go back when it began. For instance, this article from January 17, 2001. Perhaps William Kristolnacht should write for the Onion and let some of the Onion people write serious news.
History demonstrates time and again that violence only begets more violence. This is especially true when those in the recruitment pool have no other opportunities but as fighters. The strongman has no influence over those with better options. It's horrible shame that our leaders don't care and/or aren't paying attention to easily obtained truth.
Violence also begets massive profits and extensions of power for those pulling the strings. That why "our leaders" don't care.
[redneck mode on] But that thar Sun Zoo is one o' them thar yeller people. He ain't no true 'merican, so he cain't know shiyat.[/redneck mode off]
Seriously, though, it is amazing how people ignore some of the most basic wisdom that has come down through the ages in favor of babbling idiocy. Of course, it may not truly be babbling idiocy. Bush et al. may really want a protracted, hopeless war.
You can't be serious.. CSI once had someone "enhance" a low resolution CCTV feed zoomed in far enough to see a barcode. How do you extrapolate data that isn't there?
This happens in just about every kind of show where cameras are involved. I think the Hollywood writers are trying to carry on the old "blow up the negative" routine into the digital age, even though it doesn't work. In fact, the only time I've seen this done right was on an old show where the forensics guy told them he would need the negative to get a more detailed picture. He said couldn't get more detail from a developed photograph than they could get with a magnifying glass because he couldn't add what wasn't there.
Face to face is sometimes even less secure. All my credit union wants from me is an account number and name and they'll give me all the cash in my account. Not even a password or photoid. Of course, I'll take the risk of getting ripped off at a credit union over the guarantee of getting ripped off at a bank any time.
???
You might need to switch to a new credit union or bank. Both places I bank with require me to show an ID just to check the frigging balance. The *only* thing I can do without an ID is deposit money into the account.
Method for controlling the trajectory of a deceased feline to avoid impact with preexisting intellectual property
Or, better yet, "Method for applying blunt force trauma to ungulate, wherein said ungulate is deceased, lying on the ground, and infested with maggots."
May I point out that this is *not* a patent, but rather a publication of an application for a patent. I wish someone on this friggin' site would learn the difference between the two.
Oh, I know. I just wanted a blank-faced way to make an absurd joke using that video. Actually, you can find (serious this time) overviews of some aspects of the Swedish military on Google video. For instance, there is one on littoral warfare involving the Swedish navy and how they deal with congested coastlines.
I can see Bush figuring that attacking Sweden would be a piece of cake, seeing as how they're a neutral country with no army.
Well, like most other countries, if anyone tries to actually invade Sweden, they would be met with a lot of resistance. You don't need a standing army to get people mobilized in a hurry. Sweden was able to stay out of the first world war and keep an "armed neutrality" during the second world war. There is a short but descriptive video of Sweden during the second world war here. Only the title is in Swedish. The audio is English.
I think this is a great idea, but from the brief glance at the site that I took, it would appear that is has absolutely no search feature at all.
True, but this is just the beginning. A way to search court documents, track the legal history of the case itself and whether or not all or part of the decision was overturned would make a great open source project.
these are the same people that turned down a *billion* dollars to do a reunion tour
Considering that two of them are divorced (Bjorn and Agnetha IIRC), it's not too surprising. A billion dollars is not enough compensation to tour the world for over a year with your ex-wife!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is a short discussion of it in the Criticism section of this page. I imagine the planes are more along the lines of private jet aircraft, rather than huge 747's of big cargo planes. Plus, there is the whole supporting murderous dictators for fun and profit angle that belies the whole "man of God" myth that Robertson tries to perpetuate.
But this is part of the problem with debating Creationists. They set up the argument not for the sake of rational, logical discussion. Rather, they set up the arguments in a "zinger" format. Cheap shots and short, nice-sounding answers win the day, while complex explanations of the subject matter get drowned out in about two sentences. It is really the intellectual equivalent of flinging dung. They are simply interested in "winning" the argument rather than discussing the issues. You can't win against someone whose sole debate tactic is to fling dung at you. You only wind up with shit all over you.
Actually, the sad thing is that the Onion tends to predict things more accurately than the pundits. I mean, they even predicted how the Bush presidency would go back when it began. For instance, this article from January 17, 2001. Perhaps William Kristolnacht should write for the Onion and let some of the Onion people write serious news.
Seriously, though, it is amazing how people ignore some of the most basic wisdom that has come down through the ages in favor of babbling idiocy. Of course, it may not truly be babbling idiocy. Bush et al. may really want a protracted, hopeless war.
You might need to switch to a new credit union or bank. Both places I bank with require me to show an ID just to check the frigging balance. The *only* thing I can do without an ID is deposit money into the account.