EXACTLY! Plasticizers are being made a scape-goat here. The problem lies in that lady's mind (or her cat), not her computer. I mean, please. Come on. She needs help, not a clean room.:)
First step is to take the allergy tests (as this lady hasn't - isn't that a bit strange?), and make sure it's a physical affliction, not a mental one. Then, if it is physical, exposure is the best way by far. Your body can't get to grips with a substance if it only ever encounters it once or twice.
Backwards Europeans? Europe started the industrial revolution, and was responsible for the first cars, powered flight, iron ships, iron bridges, steam engines, typewriters, trains, radio, light bulb, tv, phone, computers and about a million other things. I'm not saying America hasn't invented its fair share, too, but please don't call Europe backwards. Without Europe, you'd be sitting in the dark scribbling your posts to slashdot on a post-it note;)
Anyway, I agree with you fully. America is too bogged down with the idea that whatever America does is cool, which is silly, as it's hurting the country.
"Normalcy" and "agreeance" are two Americanisms that I'm becoming more and more annoyed with. "Normality" and "agreement" aren't too scary, are they?:)
I really hear you, and accept everything you have to say.
I didn't offer any sources for what I was talking about, as google is rather good at stepping up to that challenge. Not only is it unselective with its sources, it's impartially available to everyone. I guess I should include more links, though.
I know about the three religions - I've studied them in school. If you look at them, they have more similarities than differences. The same god, the same ideals, the same messages. Sure, the corruption of men over the centuries has added different ceremonies, editied the holy scriptures, etc, but a Christian would agree with a Muslim about the basic way to live your life. They'd also both agree with the Jewish angle, too. They really aren't that different.
The left doesn't discriminate. I vehemently stand by that. I do support the Freepers, and would gladly protest to allow them the right to protest. I don't support their racist attack of my wife, or censorship of my sign (they put their US flags in front of it - made me chuckle, at least), but I do support their right to say it. Can you see my point? My mentioning the "Swift boat veterans for truth" was more of an indictment of the horrific engine the republicans use to assassinate (without evidence) those who oppose them. You can read on www.spinsanity.org about the whole deal.
Throughout all of this left vs. right debate, I truthfully try and stay as objective as I can.
You can have opinions of your own and still support everyone. It's just that some of those people who you support might not agree with the way they are being supported. After all, I didn't say they would represent the constituents as the constituents saw fit, but that they would honestly try and protect those constituents, and their best interests (income, taxation, food, security, everything). I understand it's a grey area, but I feel it's an absolutely massive one that no-one seems to want to talk about.
You write out those three points, and I agree with them totally. I've also seen each and every one of them demonstrated by left-leaning individuals, and yet to see them in right-leaning individuals.
I never once contradicted myself in my statement, sure, some of my words weren't as clear-cut as they should have been, but I certainly never meant to contradict myself. Probably too much cola.
I'm very tolerant of assholes. I understand some people were brought up with different values. I find it very easy to put myself in their shoes, and see the world from their perspective.
Check out www.spinsanity.org and take a look at the excellent PR machine that is the whitehouse. The dems haven't hijacked anyone - the republicans have marginalised anyone who reads independent press.
Let me just remove a little bit more of your argument, courtesy of our non-partisan friends at spinsanity:
Then, in a televised address to the nation in October 2002, Bush declared, "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
Each of these statements was true, but Bush's words were carefully constructed to leave a false impression. Without ever stating that there was a direct connection between Iraq, al Qaeda, and September 11, the President artfully linked them together with a series of carefully chosen phrases. After the war, Bush told an interviewer from Polish television that "We found the weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. But he was not reporting the discovery of drums of chemical weapons or artillery shells filled with anthrax. Rather, Bush was referring to a pair of trailers that some analysts thought might have been used to produce biological weapons. While experts debated the purpose of the trailers, the President of the United States was falsely claiming that WMD had been found.
So yes, he did technically tell the truth, but his use of language deceived the entire world. If he has/had nothing to hide, why choose those words?
I believe it was more due to the fact it was a soft target with massive oil reserves. It's not particularly perfect when choosing somewhere to adopt democracy. Secular != fans of democracy. The different religious groups in Iraq (Sunni, Kurd, and Shia) don't exactly get along, so asking them politely to co-exist after a long history of attrition without any totalitarian military dictatorship is asking one hell of a lot. Kind of like pronouncing a zebra and a lion as buddhists, and expecting the lion not to munch down. It takes co-operation for it to happen, and a country with a well-defined identity and good internal relations.
They can be pretty useful, but most certainly not when called from a web page:) It's a very common mistake, I've noticed. Usually affecting bittorrent trackers...
The left is open to the right. The left can see exactly how the right came into the position it's currently in. Rich white guys looking out for rich white guys. It's that simple. The left gets it, the right gets it. What the right doesn't get is the left. That's blatantly clear.
If the left were in power, you'd not be discriminated against. That's my point. The republicans discriminate against almost everyone.
The left doesn't discriminate by race, colour, religion or income. The right does.
The left does support everyone. It's part of their doctrine. You do know what that is, right?
The dems distort the truth, yes, but nowhere near the magnitude that the right does. It's an admitted fact. The right tries to assassinate the character of anyone it faces, usually using a bunch of lies. We've seen it time and time and time again, and Bush isn't showing any signs of stopping.
Hardly:) I was on both sides at the protest, and all the letfys wanted to do was get their message across. All the righties wanted to do was scream at the lefties.
Those right-wingers were being racist to my wife. The left-wingers weren't. Your point? Oh, it went away.
Errr... read a newspaper. That advert was most definitely funded (in part, at least) by GOP coffers. That's why the whitehouse had to issue a statement when the blatant fact that it's all a big bunch of shit came out.
And right off the bat, driver support is incredibly limited on linux, so it can't be used with as many different pieces of hardware. It swings both ways, you know.
And 100% of open source's developers are persuing their own agendas through their software. That's a huge issue. Without someone standing behind them dictating software direction (and PAYING them to follow), OSS projects drift. They fracture. It's just human nature.
Saying 50% of their objective is to block users from bypassing DRM is just plain silly. Can you cite where you got that figure from (your ass is not a good source;)).
The Linux coders have to work on creating something that appeals to the mass-market, not just themselves. As it is, Linux is an OS predominantly for developers. Sure, anyone can use it, but it's geared towards developers. I'd say that's a huge problem.
And the Republicans would never do anything like that! They'd never deny anyone their rights, would they? I'm not saying it's right, but the republicans shouldn't act all "ooh! we never did anything like this! we're os innocent!"
There was a MASSIVE investigation in the UK about the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The findings were that the intelligence was hyped up to insane levels, elevating something rather trivial to something sounding horrificly dangerous. Their "equipment used to manufacture WMD" could include any high-school chemistry lab anywhere in the world.
Your analogy about the gun thing is short-sighted. It would work if owning a gun was illegal. You see, Saddam wasn't going to use those weapons (even if he had them). The US went at him because he HAD those weapons, which the US sold him. So, you see, the US attacked him for something the US specifically did, not because the US sold him something he later mis-used. Remember the story for going to Iraq (after the "he's gonna kill us in the next 10 seconds" excuse) was his ownership of WMDs.
Your ideas about weapons inspectors in '98 is half-baked, relying on heresay as to what Saddam was thinking, and his probable actions. You don't go to war for that. You go to war when you're in imminent danger, or someone you care about is in imminent danger.
You say the reason the Europeans are against the war is because of money, yet you never address the point that it might not be the case at all. You assume something, and run it into the ground, saying "look at this evidence! isn't it compelling!".
You mention breaking UN security resolutions. You know the best way to not break those? Be able to veto them. The US has vetoed more resolutions than Iraq has ever broken. Resolutions like "abide by international law" etc. Blaming Iraq for not having the veto the US has is ridiculous. It's a vapid argument.
Then, you say it's not about WMD. Isn't that what Bush told us it was about? Which is it - Bush was lying and it's about Islamic fundamentalism, or Bush was telling the truth and it IS about WMDs that aren't there. Well?
Panislamic radicalism. That's a great one. How about we just give the US administration a catchy name like that and throw the exact same argument back at you?
So Iraq does have ties to Al Qaida? Wow. Where did you get that little gem from? Can you cite some sources for us? Let me spare you the time - you can't. That is a claim the Bush administration has been trying to spread around for months. It's been debunked by every media outlet there is (excluding Fox, of course). If you still believe that, you obviously have no idea what's going on in the world.
Why did the US pick Iraq? It was the least dangerous country in the middle east. So safe, in fact, that even Kuwait wasn't scared by it. I mean, if the US wanted to really take a stance against "panislamic radicalism", they would have gone for a hotbed of radicals, not a country ruled by a moderate, whisky-drinking Arab with a not-exclusively-muslim government. It just doesn't make sense. That's the whole point about all of this - if you actually think about it, using your own brain, using your own sources of information, you can quickly see that the Bush administration has changed their story SO MANY TIMES they clearly have something to hide. If they came out straight away and said about panislamic radicalism, then there would be more credibility to their stance. As it is, they didn't, and now look like they're pulling excuses out of their asses.
You seem to think that Islamic countries have an in-built hatred for the US. That's not true. Osama Bin Laden is pissed off with the states for something the states did to him and his country. If the US stopped running around pissing off every country it could find, there wouldn't be anyone parking airliners in your sky scrapers. By your logic, there would have been bombs all over Canada and every conceivable part of Europe by now. As you can see, there haven't been. Doesn't that show you that it isn't "Islam vs. The West", but "Pissed off people vs. America"
Your excuses for not going after other countries is stupid. Iraq was a "pre-emptive war" (which it
Hardly! The left, by its very nature, is open-minded. You've jumped to that conclusion because the modern left in the US has to listen to what the modern right has to say, which in this day and age is actual hate speech. Just look at Ann Coulter. You can't possibly say that's not hate speech?
I've personally spoken to members of the Free Republic web board, and I can tell you that those were the most hate-filled individuals I've ever met. Apart from racially abusing my wife and trying to censor my sign with an American flag, one woman elbowed me in the face, and one guy tried to deafen me with a bullhorn in the ear.
The left wing supports everyone. They don't discriminate. They can tell the difference between a religion, and members of that religion who are persuing their own agenda under its banner. The right seemingly can't. To many right-wingers, all muslims are a problem. The fact that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are effectively the same religion, that's too much for them to handle.
Just take a look at the sort of ridiculous FUD left-wingers have to go up against. Those Swift boat veterans who appeared in that GOP-funded advert. All of them speaking out of their asses, hacked together to try to discredit a person's war record (even more ironic seeing Bush doesn't even have a war record, and the fact he even served is under intense question).
Republicans distort the truth. They use so much spin no-one knows which way is up any more.
The republican party has so much hatred in it, you should look to your own before screaming blue murder.
USB2.0 can't sustain 400mb/s. It can rarely even achieve that speed during normal operation. If we were talking firewire, then yes, it would have been better, but with USB2, you won't even notice it.
Slashdot Mirror
EXACTLY! Plasticizers are being made a scape-goat here. The problem lies in that lady's mind (or her cat), not her computer. I mean, please. Come on. She needs help, not a clean room. :)
I think these guys might be more help to this lady...
First step is to take the allergy tests (as this lady hasn't - isn't that a bit strange?), and make sure it's a physical affliction, not a mental one. Then, if it is physical, exposure is the best way by far. Your body can't get to grips with a substance if it only ever encounters it once or twice.
People with Munchausen's (sp?) syndrome do. People with Munchausen's by-proxy even like their loved ones to feel sick. groovy, huh?
Anyway, I agree with you fully. America is too bogged down with the idea that whatever America does is cool, which is silly, as it's hurting the country.
"Normalcy" and "agreeance" are two Americanisms that I'm becoming more and more annoyed with. "Normality" and "agreement" aren't too scary, are they? :)
It does when the company providing the content is funded by the inhabitants of a specific country :)
Or, a million programmers writing competing software. If Tivo aren't paying the programmers, Tivo doesn't own anything.
I didn't offer any sources for what I was talking about, as google is rather good at stepping up to that challenge. Not only is it unselective with its sources, it's impartially available to everyone. I guess I should include more links, though.
I know about the three religions - I've studied them in school. If you look at them, they have more similarities than differences. The same god, the same ideals, the same messages. Sure, the corruption of men over the centuries has added different ceremonies, editied the holy scriptures, etc, but a Christian would agree with a Muslim about the basic way to live your life. They'd also both agree with the Jewish angle, too. They really aren't that different.
The left doesn't discriminate. I vehemently stand by that. I do support the Freepers, and would gladly protest to allow them the right to protest. I don't support their racist attack of my wife, or censorship of my sign (they put their US flags in front of it - made me chuckle, at least), but I do support their right to say it. Can you see my point? My mentioning the "Swift boat veterans for truth" was more of an indictment of the horrific engine the republicans use to assassinate (without evidence) those who oppose them. You can read on www.spinsanity.org about the whole deal.
Throughout all of this left vs. right debate, I truthfully try and stay as objective as I can.
You can have opinions of your own and still support everyone. It's just that some of those people who you support might not agree with the way they are being supported. After all, I didn't say they would represent the constituents as the constituents saw fit, but that they would honestly try and protect those constituents, and their best interests (income, taxation, food, security, everything). I understand it's a grey area, but I feel it's an absolutely massive one that no-one seems to want to talk about.
You write out those three points, and I agree with them totally. I've also seen each and every one of them demonstrated by left-leaning individuals, and yet to see them in right-leaning individuals.
I never once contradicted myself in my statement, sure, some of my words weren't as clear-cut as they should have been, but I certainly never meant to contradict myself. Probably too much cola.
I'm very tolerant of assholes. I understand some people were brought up with different values. I find it very easy to put myself in their shoes, and see the world from their perspective.
I'm just gonna shut up now.
Check out www.spinsanity.org and take a look at the excellent PR machine that is the whitehouse. The dems haven't hijacked anyone - the republicans have marginalised anyone who reads independent press.
Then, in a televised address to the nation in October 2002, Bush declared, "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
Each of these statements was true, but Bush's words were carefully constructed to leave a false impression. Without ever stating that there was a direct connection between Iraq, al Qaeda, and September 11, the President artfully linked them together with a series of carefully chosen phrases. After the war, Bush told an interviewer from Polish television that "We found the weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. But he was not reporting the discovery of drums of chemical weapons or artillery shells filled with anthrax. Rather, Bush was referring to a pair of trailers that some analysts thought might have been used to produce biological weapons. While experts debated the purpose of the trailers, the President of the United States was falsely claiming that WMD had been found.
So yes, he did technically tell the truth, but his use of language deceived the entire world. If he has/had nothing to hide, why choose those words?
Republican mods in the hizoooouse!!!
Thanks for the compliment, though!
They can be pretty useful, but most certainly not when called from a web page :) It's a very common mistake, I've noticed. Usually affecting bittorrent trackers...
If the left were in power, you'd not be discriminated against. That's my point. The republicans discriminate against almost everyone.
The left does support everyone. It's part of their doctrine. You do know what that is, right?
The dems distort the truth, yes, but nowhere near the magnitude that the right does. It's an admitted fact. The right tries to assassinate the character of anyone it faces, usually using a bunch of lies. We've seen it time and time and time again, and Bush isn't showing any signs of stopping.
Those right-wingers were being racist to my wife. The left-wingers weren't. Your point? Oh, it went away.
Errr... read a newspaper. That advert was most definitely funded (in part, at least) by GOP coffers. That's why the whitehouse had to issue a statement when the blatant fact that it's all a big bunch of shit came out.
And right off the bat, driver support is incredibly limited on linux, so it can't be used with as many different pieces of hardware. It swings both ways, you know.
Saying 50% of their objective is to block users from bypassing DRM is just plain silly. Can you cite where you got that figure from (your ass is not a good source ;)).
The Linux coders have to work on creating something that appeals to the mass-market, not just themselves. As it is, Linux is an OS predominantly for developers. Sure, anyone can use it, but it's geared towards developers. I'd say that's a huge problem.
Sure, it was a good OS, but it wasn't anything special. It definitely didn't step on 9X's toes :)
*cough*guantanamo*cough*abu ghraib*cough*
Your analogy about the gun thing is short-sighted. It would work if owning a gun was illegal. You see, Saddam wasn't going to use those weapons (even if he had them). The US went at him because he HAD those weapons, which the US sold him. So, you see, the US attacked him for something the US specifically did, not because the US sold him something he later mis-used. Remember the story for going to Iraq (after the "he's gonna kill us in the next 10 seconds" excuse) was his ownership of WMDs.
Your ideas about weapons inspectors in '98 is half-baked, relying on heresay as to what Saddam was thinking, and his probable actions. You don't go to war for that. You go to war when you're in imminent danger, or someone you care about is in imminent danger.
You say the reason the Europeans are against the war is because of money, yet you never address the point that it might not be the case at all. You assume something, and run it into the ground, saying "look at this evidence! isn't it compelling!".
You mention breaking UN security resolutions. You know the best way to not break those? Be able to veto them. The US has vetoed more resolutions than Iraq has ever broken. Resolutions like "abide by international law" etc. Blaming Iraq for not having the veto the US has is ridiculous. It's a vapid argument.
Then, you say it's not about WMD. Isn't that what Bush told us it was about? Which is it - Bush was lying and it's about Islamic fundamentalism, or Bush was telling the truth and it IS about WMDs that aren't there. Well?
Panislamic radicalism. That's a great one. How about we just give the US administration a catchy name like that and throw the exact same argument back at you?
So Iraq does have ties to Al Qaida? Wow. Where did you get that little gem from? Can you cite some sources for us? Let me spare you the time - you can't. That is a claim the Bush administration has been trying to spread around for months. It's been debunked by every media outlet there is (excluding Fox, of course). If you still believe that, you obviously have no idea what's going on in the world.
Why did the US pick Iraq? It was the least dangerous country in the middle east. So safe, in fact, that even Kuwait wasn't scared by it. I mean, if the US wanted to really take a stance against "panislamic radicalism", they would have gone for a hotbed of radicals, not a country ruled by a moderate, whisky-drinking Arab with a not-exclusively-muslim government. It just doesn't make sense. That's the whole point about all of this - if you actually think about it, using your own brain, using your own sources of information, you can quickly see that the Bush administration has changed their story SO MANY TIMES they clearly have something to hide. If they came out straight away and said about panislamic radicalism, then there would be more credibility to their stance. As it is, they didn't, and now look like they're pulling excuses out of their asses.
You seem to think that Islamic countries have an in-built hatred for the US. That's not true. Osama Bin Laden is pissed off with the states for something the states did to him and his country. If the US stopped running around pissing off every country it could find, there wouldn't be anyone parking airliners in your sky scrapers. By your logic, there would have been bombs all over Canada and every conceivable part of Europe by now. As you can see, there haven't been. Doesn't that show you that it isn't "Islam vs. The West", but "Pissed off people vs. America"
Your excuses for not going after other countries is stupid. Iraq was a "pre-emptive war" (which it
I've personally spoken to members of the Free Republic web board, and I can tell you that those were the most hate-filled individuals I've ever met. Apart from racially abusing my wife and trying to censor my sign with an American flag, one woman elbowed me in the face, and one guy tried to deafen me with a bullhorn in the ear.
The left wing supports everyone. They don't discriminate. They can tell the difference between a religion, and members of that religion who are persuing their own agenda under its banner. The right seemingly can't. To many right-wingers, all muslims are a problem. The fact that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are effectively the same religion, that's too much for them to handle.
Just take a look at the sort of ridiculous FUD left-wingers have to go up against. Those Swift boat veterans who appeared in that GOP-funded advert. All of them speaking out of their asses, hacked together to try to discredit a person's war record (even more ironic seeing Bush doesn't even have a war record, and the fact he even served is under intense question).
Republicans distort the truth. They use so much spin no-one knows which way is up any more.
The republican party has so much hatred in it, you should look to your own before screaming blue murder.
USB2.0 can't sustain 400mb/s. It can rarely even achieve that speed during normal operation. If we were talking firewire, then yes, it would have been better, but with USB2, you won't even notice it.