Because when someone's in prison the self-correcting aspect of the system still has a chance to correct the situation. Once you kill someone, no amount of form-filling or evidence will bring them back to life. The fact you are calling for innocents to be killed (as that is what the death penalty guarantees) seems a bit weird, as many would consider that to be murder, meaning you think you should be killed.
Because it's incredibly useful as fuel. The more dangerous it is, the more useful it is. The waste from a decent reactor design would be no more radioactive than background radiation, but they don't exist yet. That's the key word - yet.
Your discrimination astounds me. Here you are claiming that Indians thousands of miles away can't code (which is patently false, given the scientific advances happening in India), and in a thread not too long ago you were railing against women for absolutely no reason apart from your own insecurities. Due to the ease at which you make generalisations of millions (or, in the case of women, billions) of people based on your own perverse and easily-disproved prejudices, you are either a wonderful troll, or a hateful pathetic human being. Pick one - your choice.
Which all makes sense, but seeing as the US can't even get high-speed rail to work in areas with lots of nearby cities, your argument doesn't hold much water. It would help the US if people stopped trying to excuse its short-comings as some unique characteristic. Getting high-speed rail in New England should be incredibly feasible, but somehow that hasn't happened. Relative scale indeed - it works both ways.
Not really - it sets a great precedent to actors like the US - don't mess with people, otherwise you might be attacked. Your last post is simple guesswork, and if the US hadn't started messing with them, would be moot anyway, as they wouldn't exist.
No! Just stop! Just stop meddling with them, and fix any wrongs that have been committed against them. Simple. That's all they want. Further degrading their honour by throwing money at them as if they were some kid who needs a new bike only serves to perpetuate the madness. You are correct about engagement - but earnest engagement to discuss grievances on both sides, with the intent to reach a compromise. Look at the Good Friday agreement for a good example.
Your post could be entirely leveled at the US, you realise. This is why you can't simply deal with disputes with violence, as unless you kill or convert every last person who disagrees with you (whether they are violent or not) your enemy will never disappear. Diplomacy is the key, especially with terrorism. Attack their manifesto, not their members. Admit wrongs on both sides, and strive to fix them. If one side has done something clearly heinous they are unwilling to change, then it's blatantly obvious to everyone involved and the world at large who the real bad guys are, and global opinion will be swung against them. I have a feeling the US doesn't do this as it knows it's done some pretty shady things in the past (and is still doing them) and doesn't want to admit it was wrong. Britain manned up in Northern Ireland and admitted its mistakes and strove to fix them, and now violence has reduced massively, to the point where leaders on both sides of the former dispute (ex-terrorists and government members) are jointly condemning violence when it appears. That's progress. Ignoring the causes of terrorism only ensures it continues.
Odd ideals like "Hey, foreign power! Stop putting your bases on our culturally-important land, stop aiding our enemies, and stop running around our countries killing our brothers and sisters!". How peculiar indeed. I'm sure if you were in that situation you'd be fine with it. What weirdos, right?
This is what Al Qaeda have been asking for since the beginning. They want the US out of their affairs, out of their lands, and to stop aiding people who are equally meddling with them and their brethren. Happy, contented people don't become terrorists. Imagine what it would take for you to take up arms against someone - these people, or those they strongly identify with, have been through that, and many worse.
Or just honestly address the points in their manifesto. Very few terrorist groups have manifestos written in crayon or faeces. Most have encountered (perceived) serious grievances and want them addressed. Al Qaeda, if I remember correctly, were not too pleased with the unending support of Israel's occupation of Palestine and the Palestinians, the massive US military bases in Saudi Arabia, and the extortion of Arab states in the first Gulf War for unneeded missile defense systems.
When people have no reason to become terrorists, they generally don't. That's why neither of us are terrorists.
No, "They are feeling marginalised, whether correctly or not, as a group, and want to regain some control over their existence by removing the very visible foreign influence being exerted upon them" is more apt. They don't hate "our" freedom - they want their freedom. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but to assume it's something so ridiculously childishly simple as that trite 4-word-saying is only going to ensure the violence continues.
No-one wakes up one day and thinks "I'm going to become a terrorist" - it takes years and years (and frequently generations) of external pressure on a group by perceived outsiders, to the point where their only perceived options are violent struggle. If they lack military superiority, then they do whatever they can to effect their ends, which usually means terrorism, as that is the most cost-effective means at their disposal. This often causes counter-factions forming to battle the first group, increasing the violence and diminishing the chances of a successful (read: peaceful) outcome. I don't expect you to understand, as you most likely live an incredibly comfortable life compared to those who would engage in terrorism.
If people in power started to listen to concerned groups of citizens, and earnestly engage them regarding their perceived grievances, either the groups would be happy with the outcome of any talks (if their grievances are legitimate and the talks are indeed earnest), or their grievances are shown to be illusions - either way the powers that be don't have egg on their face, and if anyone does try to attack them (using terrorism or otherwise), they have the moral high ground without doubt, enabling them to use diplomacy to find allies who will help with their cause, as well as being able to show the world just who they are dealing with without having to lie about the intentions and grievances of those who are attacking.
A great example of this is in Northern Ireland, where systematic abuse of Catholic areas caused great consternation among the Catholic people, and the British government simply refused to listen to the increasing cries to do something about it. That continued for decades, until elements from the Catholic population decided the only way they could get Britain to listen was to pick up arms and make them listen. This caused elements within the Protestant community to also up arms to defend themselves. The fucked up thing is that it worked - Britain took steps to end the carnage which included the initial requests of the concerned Catholics a generation or two ago. If the British had listened to the Catholics at the beginning, had fixed the institutionalised discrimination they faced, and didn't act like they had every right in the world to do what they were doing, then the Troubles would never have happened.
For the US to end terrorism against itself, it should have listened to the people from the Muslim countries when it started to push its weight around - they cried foul when they perceived the US was treading all over their values, and instead of addressing it, they were ignored, causing their grievances to fester and spread over the generations. The US kept on doing what it was doing, unabated, and we found ourselves on 9/11 2001. You should read the Al Qaeda manifesto - most of it is serious common sense, calling for the US to simply be respectful of the cultures it was knocking around, for its own benefit, in the Middle East.
Or you can just say "they hate our freedom" and ignore everything. I guess that's easier, so it must be right.
And every single thing you claimed was special about the US and which hurt its rankings applies to many other countries too, and they don't see the problems the US is seeing. Then you come along and claim it's all nonsense, as the article said happens, and don't see the problem. You, and especially the attitude you hold, are part of the problem. But I'm sure you can excuse that too and come up with some incredibly insightful explanation as to how it's fine to ignore problems such as these, and how you are right and the rest of the world is different to how it actually is.
So just one person means that Europe's grasp of geography isn't as good as the well-documented and oft-repeated shambles which is the general geographic knowledge of the average American? Oh, wait, I get it. You think it's OK for the US to be a joke when it comes to such things if you can point to someone else and say they're just as bad. Gotcha.
The US is #3 behind China and the EU in terms of amount of power generated from renewable sources, and is #112 in terms of percentage of renewable power being used in its grid (at slightly over 10%, just ahead of Kazakhstan). So that's probably where "us guys" get that perception from - reality.
That is correct, but the chances of some armchair engineer on Slashdot being more correct than this team (which includes people with decades of experience in this field) is not exactly something any sane person would bet on. Surely you realise that, right?
So that's a resounding "yes" then. You do realise if you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend the US isn't what it is, that it will never get better? The US is in the unique position of calling itself, repeatedly, "the land of the free and the home of the brave". You are showing that not only is the US not the bastion of freedom it claims to be, that you are not even brave enough to do anything about it. I'm sure you still feel proud when you sing the national anthem, but deep down you should feel a bit embarrassed as you hypocritically sing along. You are the reason the US is in the state it's in - you are so blinded by notions of what the US claims to be that you ignore what it actually has become. Your ancestors would be deeply ashamed of you.
Move to a civilised country where those things are not a concern? Just a thought. I guess I'm lucky enough to live in a place where I don't need a car, where the streets are safe regardless of the time of day, and where there are no gang initiations happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Because when someone's in prison the self-correcting aspect of the system still has a chance to correct the situation. Once you kill someone, no amount of form-filling or evidence will bring them back to life. The fact you are calling for innocents to be killed (as that is what the death penalty guarantees) seems a bit weird, as many would consider that to be murder, meaning you think you should be killed.
So, to sum up: "Killing = good, due process = bad".
So you'd prefer to bow to a clearly unjust law and let a loved one suffer like that? You suck as a human being.
Because it's incredibly useful as fuel. The more dangerous it is, the more useful it is. The waste from a decent reactor design would be no more radioactive than background radiation, but they don't exist yet. That's the key word - yet.
Master Blaster runs Bartertown.
Your discrimination astounds me. Here you are claiming that Indians thousands of miles away can't code (which is patently false, given the scientific advances happening in India), and in a thread not too long ago you were railing against women for absolutely no reason apart from your own insecurities. Due to the ease at which you make generalisations of millions (or, in the case of women, billions) of people based on your own perverse and easily-disproved prejudices, you are either a wonderful troll, or a hateful pathetic human being. Pick one - your choice.
Which all makes sense, but seeing as the US can't even get high-speed rail to work in areas with lots of nearby cities, your argument doesn't hold much water. It would help the US if people stopped trying to excuse its short-comings as some unique characteristic. Getting high-speed rail in New England should be incredibly feasible, but somehow that hasn't happened. Relative scale indeed - it works both ways.
Some of the worst roads I've ever seen were in the US. Shocking stuff.
Not really - it sets a great precedent to actors like the US - don't mess with people, otherwise you might be attacked. Your last post is simple guesswork, and if the US hadn't started messing with them, would be moot anyway, as they wouldn't exist.
Hardly. Read it again.
No! Just stop! Just stop meddling with them, and fix any wrongs that have been committed against them. Simple. That's all they want. Further degrading their honour by throwing money at them as if they were some kid who needs a new bike only serves to perpetuate the madness. You are correct about engagement - but earnest engagement to discuss grievances on both sides, with the intent to reach a compromise. Look at the Good Friday agreement for a good example.
Your post could be entirely leveled at the US, you realise. This is why you can't simply deal with disputes with violence, as unless you kill or convert every last person who disagrees with you (whether they are violent or not) your enemy will never disappear. Diplomacy is the key, especially with terrorism. Attack their manifesto, not their members. Admit wrongs on both sides, and strive to fix them. If one side has done something clearly heinous they are unwilling to change, then it's blatantly obvious to everyone involved and the world at large who the real bad guys are, and global opinion will be swung against them. I have a feeling the US doesn't do this as it knows it's done some pretty shady things in the past (and is still doing them) and doesn't want to admit it was wrong. Britain manned up in Northern Ireland and admitted its mistakes and strove to fix them, and now violence has reduced massively, to the point where leaders on both sides of the former dispute (ex-terrorists and government members) are jointly condemning violence when it appears. That's progress. Ignoring the causes of terrorism only ensures it continues.
Odd ideals like "Hey, foreign power! Stop putting your bases on our culturally-important land, stop aiding our enemies, and stop running around our countries killing our brothers and sisters!". How peculiar indeed. I'm sure if you were in that situation you'd be fine with it. What weirdos, right?
This is what Al Qaeda have been asking for since the beginning. They want the US out of their affairs, out of their lands, and to stop aiding people who are equally meddling with them and their brethren. Happy, contented people don't become terrorists. Imagine what it would take for you to take up arms against someone - these people, or those they strongly identify with, have been through that, and many worse.
Or just honestly address the points in their manifesto. Very few terrorist groups have manifestos written in crayon or faeces. Most have encountered (perceived) serious grievances and want them addressed. Al Qaeda, if I remember correctly, were not too pleased with the unending support of Israel's occupation of Palestine and the Palestinians, the massive US military bases in Saudi Arabia, and the extortion of Arab states in the first Gulf War for unneeded missile defense systems.
When people have no reason to become terrorists, they generally don't. That's why neither of us are terrorists.
No, "They are feeling marginalised, whether correctly or not, as a group, and want to regain some control over their existence by removing the very visible foreign influence being exerted upon them" is more apt. They don't hate "our" freedom - they want their freedom. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but to assume it's something so ridiculously childishly simple as that trite 4-word-saying is only going to ensure the violence continues.
No-one wakes up one day and thinks "I'm going to become a terrorist" - it takes years and years (and frequently generations) of external pressure on a group by perceived outsiders, to the point where their only perceived options are violent struggle. If they lack military superiority, then they do whatever they can to effect their ends, which usually means terrorism, as that is the most cost-effective means at their disposal. This often causes counter-factions forming to battle the first group, increasing the violence and diminishing the chances of a successful (read: peaceful) outcome. I don't expect you to understand, as you most likely live an incredibly comfortable life compared to those who would engage in terrorism.
If people in power started to listen to concerned groups of citizens, and earnestly engage them regarding their perceived grievances, either the groups would be happy with the outcome of any talks (if their grievances are legitimate and the talks are indeed earnest), or their grievances are shown to be illusions - either way the powers that be don't have egg on their face, and if anyone does try to attack them (using terrorism or otherwise), they have the moral high ground without doubt, enabling them to use diplomacy to find allies who will help with their cause, as well as being able to show the world just who they are dealing with without having to lie about the intentions and grievances of those who are attacking.
A great example of this is in Northern Ireland, where systematic abuse of Catholic areas caused great consternation among the Catholic people, and the British government simply refused to listen to the increasing cries to do something about it. That continued for decades, until elements from the Catholic population decided the only way they could get Britain to listen was to pick up arms and make them listen. This caused elements within the Protestant community to also up arms to defend themselves. The fucked up thing is that it worked - Britain took steps to end the carnage which included the initial requests of the concerned Catholics a generation or two ago. If the British had listened to the Catholics at the beginning, had fixed the institutionalised discrimination they faced, and didn't act like they had every right in the world to do what they were doing, then the Troubles would never have happened.
For the US to end terrorism against itself, it should have listened to the people from the Muslim countries when it started to push its weight around - they cried foul when they perceived the US was treading all over their values, and instead of addressing it, they were ignored, causing their grievances to fester and spread over the generations. The US kept on doing what it was doing, unabated, and we found ourselves on 9/11 2001. You should read the Al Qaeda manifesto - most of it is serious common sense, calling for the US to simply be respectful of the cultures it was knocking around, for its own benefit, in the Middle East.
Or you can just say "they hate our freedom" and ignore everything. I guess that's easier, so it must be right.
And every single thing you claimed was special about the US and which hurt its rankings applies to many other countries too, and they don't see the problems the US is seeing. Then you come along and claim it's all nonsense, as the article said happens, and don't see the problem. You, and especially the attitude you hold, are part of the problem. But I'm sure you can excuse that too and come up with some incredibly insightful explanation as to how it's fine to ignore problems such as these, and how you are right and the rest of the world is different to how it actually is.
So just one person means that Europe's grasp of geography isn't as good as the well-documented and oft-repeated shambles which is the general geographic knowledge of the average American? Oh, wait, I get it. You think it's OK for the US to be a joke when it comes to such things if you can point to someone else and say they're just as bad. Gotcha.
The US is #3 behind China and the EU in terms of amount of power generated from renewable sources, and is #112 in terms of percentage of renewable power being used in its grid (at slightly over 10%, just ahead of Kazakhstan). So that's probably where "us guys" get that perception from - reality.
What the fuck does nationality have to do with anything? Xenophobia is no excuse.
There's that denial in action, folks! Bask in its glory!
That is correct, but the chances of some armchair engineer on Slashdot being more correct than this team (which includes people with decades of experience in this field) is not exactly something any sane person would bet on. Surely you realise that, right?
That didn't actually happen as you seem to think it does, which reflects more poorly on you than it does MS.
So that's a resounding "yes" then. You do realise if you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend the US isn't what it is, that it will never get better? The US is in the unique position of calling itself, repeatedly, "the land of the free and the home of the brave". You are showing that not only is the US not the bastion of freedom it claims to be, that you are not even brave enough to do anything about it. I'm sure you still feel proud when you sing the national anthem, but deep down you should feel a bit embarrassed as you hypocritically sing along. You are the reason the US is in the state it's in - you are so blinded by notions of what the US claims to be that you ignore what it actually has become. Your ancestors would be deeply ashamed of you.
Move to a civilised country where those things are not a concern? Just a thought. I guess I'm lucky enough to live in a place where I don't need a car, where the streets are safe regardless of the time of day, and where there are no gang initiations happening.