"results" resulting from poorly trained troops. As most other nations seem to be able to keep their troops from shooting down passenger airliners (by, funnily enough a brand-new missile boat).
I know what you're saying, but the US has far, FAR more friendly-fire accidents than other nations. I mean, it's not often you can think many accidents off the top of your head that you can attribute to one nation: The Canadian observers blown up by USAF figters. The RAF Tornado shot down by patriot missiles. That Iranian passenger airliner shot down by that USN ship. Those US soldiers shooting each other when a missile landed in their compound in Iraq. The A10 attack on the US convoy that left british/iraqi journalists dead, and many injured.
Of course, this pales into insignificance against the actual ordered killing of what would be deemed "friendlies" by other countries - such as the systematic attack of Baghdad residential areas by US attack helicopters, etc. I guess once people are called "collateral damage" they stop being people, and 1 American == 20 Iraqis.
This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the US military, who seem to think that numbers == effectiveness, and weapons == good soldier. They've got a LOT to learn, and unfortunately it'll be innocent people who have to teach them that lesson.
"When the military talks about terrorism, I run away. They usually talk in order to keep the money coming in."
It's not just the military. Everyone on TV who mentions it, and how they can stop it, is simply trying to get more money or more job security. In the case of Bush, both.
Don't you realise that apple wants their firmware to be lacking in options? They want 1Gers and 2Gers to buy 3G ipods. To do this, they withhold features and put them only in the 3G one.
The linux version has a lot of work to do to even catch up, let alone exceeding the apple firmware.
I already wrote one of those, but for Windows. It uses PHP to parse the iTunesDB file on the ipod, and it extracts the MP3s off the ipod to the disk, storing them in an artist > album > song directory structure, re-tagging the mp3s with the fields from the iTunesDB file. It even makes.m3u playlists from the playlists on the ipod... It can also update a MySQL database with the song details, which I use for powering my web-based ipod streaming software. I can listen to my ipod wherever I am. It even caches the mp3s on my work PC (I have a lot of hard disk space), so when the ipod's disconnected, the web-interface still works. I can sit at home listening to my ipod over an SSH tunnel and wireless access:-P That's as portable as I want my music:)
That's not true at all... Norton AntiVirus (and many others) use a system for detecting virus-like behaviour of processes. Called heuristics, it doesn't require the virus be in its definition files for it to be detected. Most modern AV systems will quarantine the process and ask the user whether to continue (strongly suggesting "NO! - CLEAN IT!")
Saying they're purely reactionary is not true in the slightest. Maybe the cheap AV software, but not the bleeding edge.
Very true. I have a friend who's from South-Central LA (sorry, South LA), and he's black. He gets called "African American", which is pretty strange for him, as he doesn't know where his family is from. Sure, waaay back his folks were in Africa, but then so were everyone's. I'm white - would I be a European-American? Of course not.
The "funny" thing is, these politically correct terms are often more offensive than the terms they replace.
Well, it's not released under the GPL, for one thing...
Microsoft as a company hasn't straight-up said OSS is the work of the devil. They're exploring an avenue of socialist software development. I think everyone here should respect this initial dabbling, and promote it. If they continue this trend, it's good for everyone.
Facts don't, but arguments and spin does. The fact he stars out saying the US is against fascist dictatorships, when it has one of the most deadly fascist governments in power at the moment. Bush stole the last election - there's enough proof of that. Bush is firmly in the pocket of big business, and using terror as a tool to control his sheep citizens into letting him stay another 4 years. It doesn't get more fascist than that.
He also mentioned that my points don't count, as it's before WW2. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. He also spouts spin about "outlawed democratic opposition". He didn't mention the fact that Guatemala is still severely fscked in the ass from what the US has done to it.
He mentions the fact that the US breached international law in invading Cuba, but says they should do it, because "he's a bad guy". That doesn't mean it's OK to break international law. Some people think Bush is a bad guy (myself included), but I don't want someone marching up to him and offing him. I don't like Bush, but I like the law even more.
The US's involvement in Nicaragua was so dire to even defend it shows al ulterior motive. Any reading on the subject (from NON-US sources) would shed some real light on the subject.
Grenada had a government more popular than Bush's - by that logic, it would be OK for someone to flatten Washington, DC with nukes. Right.
It doesn't matter whether they were trying to do the right thing, breaking international law is still breaking international law, and a Bad Thing (TM). There is absolutely, 100% no justification for breaking it. That seems to be the idea lost on most Americans of your (and his)ilk. The fact it's in America's best interest doesn't mean to say it's OK.
If the US was such a consciencious participant in global affairs, why did it sit on its ass during WW2? Oh that's right - 'cos no-one was bombing it. The fact that Hitler rode across Europe and toppled dozens of democratically-elected officials and governments doesn't mean anything there, apparently.
If the US is honestly out for democracy, it would have done more to save it. If you look at real history books, you'll see America only acts when America gets something out of it. It's that simple.
Oh, and notice how he didn't mention the US's involvement in Vietnam or Korea. Or Iraq (x2).
No, the US vetoes things that harm its agenda. That's the only reason. They aren't aimed at the US, but aimed at practices people don't want to happen any more. Practices, though, that the US doesn't seem to mind using to its own ends. Most of the rest of the world realises it has to exist with every other country, apart from the US. It has the balls to declare war on countries because those countries don't have the same rights it does in the UN.
Most Americans just don't see the huge hypocrisy.
What about the US vetoing the law to allow US servicemen and women to be tried as war criminals? Surely the only possible reason you'd not agree to such a law is if you think your soldiers will commit war crimes.
The list goes on. It's not as if the US is vetoing laws like "Everyone gets to bomb a part of Florida next week" or "International Law re-zoning New York as New Moscow, giving sovreignty to Russia". They're sensible laws, like nuclear non-proliferation etc. Laws that help everyone. But oh no - if they curb the US's insatiable thirst for power, then they have to be devices of the pinko commie leftie socialist bastards, huh?
Most Americans just don't see how wacko the US acts in the international community. They all think the US is a great, upstanding member - not the mad Dr. Frankenstein power-crazed maniac that the rest of the world sees.
I know America isn't the great satan. American foreign policy is the closest thing we have, though.
You can think what you want about me, but you've already told me all I need to know about your feeble grasp of international politics and law.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
If he preaches a religion, he ostracized those from other religions. If he preaches a sexuality, he ostracizes those from other sexualities.
In short, the very fact that he has mentioned these aspects of his life (and lets them encroach on his political life) means he doesn't represent everyone.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
He wants to represent you, however seeing as you're not a homophobic nazi, he doesn't.
I'm sorry if I offended - that was never my intention.
Whatever, Mr. AC. Seriously. Your arguments are dated and a poor attempt to pass the buck.
thanks!
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
He's not standing for everyone. He preaches Christianity to everyone when he makes a speech, so he's not representing anyone apart from Christians. He's also not representing gay people. He's also not representing poor people. Or immigrants.
So, he's only representing rich white straight christians. Hardly representative, is it?
Re:I see nothing wrong with it
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
And the US is a fascist dictatorship that has a history of invading whoever the fsck it wants around the world - think
(1912) U.S. Marines invade Nicaragua and occupy the country almost continuously until 1933,
(1954) The CIA engineers the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala; 30 years of military dictatorship, repression, and violence follow,
(1961) The U.S. attempts to overthrow the revolutionary Cuban government at the Bay of Pigs,
(1965) Johnson sends 22,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to combat the constitutional forces trying to regain power,
(1981) The Reagan Administration begins the contra war against Nicaraguan civilians,
(1983) The U.S. invades Grenada to overthrow a popular government,
(1989) The U.S. invades Panama to arrest accused drug dealer Manual Noriega.
And that's just in its own continent. Funnily enough, the US also invaded two of those countries on your list, only first. Go figure.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 1
Restore integrity.... ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!
Seriously - if he can't pocket money from something, he's not interested. It sounds like a typical bashing of an unpopular politician, but it's true. 100%. He's the epitome of the professional politician. His wheels are greased by cash. He doesn't care about America. I mean, he's dealt with the Bin Ladens and the Taliban, all for money.
Bush = very, very bad for everyone. Even those he says he's standing for.
People never mention that! During the war on Iraq, people were going on about how many security council resolutions Iraq broke, but they never mentioned the amount the US vetoed, thereby avoiding having to break them when they did what they wanted.
The US vetoes more international laws than any other country. It's not hard to see how it breaks as few international laws as it does.
Anyway. America doesn't care about the treaties it has signed up to, if it gets in the way.
Iraq's not as dangerous as they say it is... You can thank the media and it's "We freed them, now look! They're shooting at us! Crazy ungrateful arabs!" spin. It's more dangerous for the iraqi police than the americans, by far (especially as the US troops seem to take great pleasure in shooting them).
If we're talking about corruption, you need look no further than the whitehouse for the definitive example of a corrupt public office.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what you're saying, but the US has far, FAR more friendly-fire accidents than other nations. I mean, it's not often you can think many accidents off the top of your head that you can attribute to one nation: The Canadian observers blown up by USAF figters. The RAF Tornado shot down by patriot missiles. That Iranian passenger airliner shot down by that USN ship. Those US soldiers shooting each other when a missile landed in their compound in Iraq. The A10 attack on the US convoy that left british/iraqi journalists dead, and many injured.
Of course, this pales into insignificance against the actual ordered killing of what would be deemed "friendlies" by other countries - such as the systematic attack of Baghdad residential areas by US attack helicopters, etc. I guess once people are called "collateral damage" they stop being people, and 1 American == 20 Iraqis.
This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the US military, who seem to think that numbers == effectiveness, and weapons == good soldier. They've got a LOT to learn, and unfortunately it'll be innocent people who have to teach them that lesson.
The Last Starfighter!!! WOO!!!
It's not just the military. Everyone on TV who mentions it, and how they can stop it, is simply trying to get more money or more job security. In the case of Bush, both.
The linux version has a lot of work to do to even catch up, let alone exceeding the apple firmware.
Why, pray tell, are the BBC biassed? Just wondering...
I already wrote one of those, but for Windows. It uses PHP to parse the iTunesDB file on the ipod, and it extracts the MP3s off the ipod to the disk, storing them in an artist > album > song directory structure, re-tagging the mp3s with the fields from the iTunesDB file. It even makes .m3u playlists from the playlists on the ipod... It can also update a MySQL database with the song details, which I use for powering my web-based ipod streaming software. I can listen to my ipod wherever I am. It even caches the mp3s on my work PC (I have a lot of hard disk space), so when the ipod's disconnected, the web-interface still works. I can sit at home listening to my ipod over an SSH tunnel and wireless access :-P That's as portable as I want my music :)
Saying they're purely reactionary is not true in the slightest. Maybe the cheap AV software, but not the bleeding edge.
The "funny" thing is, these politically correct terms are often more offensive than the terms they replace.
RealPlayer = rubbish player
Wordperfect = rubbish word processor
Eudora = rubbish email client
The only business practice microsoft showed in those examples was making a better product. You can't fault them for that, can you?
Microsoft as a company hasn't straight-up said OSS is the work of the devil. They're exploring an avenue of socialist software development. I think everyone here should respect this initial dabbling, and promote it. If they continue this trend, it's good for everyone.
He also mentioned that my points don't count, as it's before WW2. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. He also spouts spin about "outlawed democratic opposition". He didn't mention the fact that Guatemala is still severely fscked in the ass from what the US has done to it.
He mentions the fact that the US breached international law in invading Cuba, but says they should do it, because "he's a bad guy". That doesn't mean it's OK to break international law. Some people think Bush is a bad guy (myself included), but I don't want someone marching up to him and offing him. I don't like Bush, but I like the law even more.
The US's involvement in Nicaragua was so dire to even defend it shows al ulterior motive. Any reading on the subject (from NON-US sources) would shed some real light on the subject.
Grenada had a government more popular than Bush's - by that logic, it would be OK for someone to flatten Washington, DC with nukes. Right.
It doesn't matter whether they were trying to do the right thing, breaking international law is still breaking international law, and a Bad Thing (TM). There is absolutely, 100% no justification for breaking it. That seems to be the idea lost on most Americans of your (and his)ilk. The fact it's in America's best interest doesn't mean to say it's OK.
If the US was such a consciencious participant in global affairs, why did it sit on its ass during WW2? Oh that's right - 'cos no-one was bombing it. The fact that Hitler rode across Europe and toppled dozens of democratically-elected officials and governments doesn't mean anything there, apparently.
If the US is honestly out for democracy, it would have done more to save it. If you look at real history books, you'll see America only acts when America gets something out of it. It's that simple.
Oh, and notice how he didn't mention the US's involvement in Vietnam or Korea. Or Iraq (x2).
Most Americans just don't see the huge hypocrisy.
What about the US vetoing the law to allow US servicemen and women to be tried as war criminals? Surely the only possible reason you'd not agree to such a law is if you think your soldiers will commit war crimes.
The list goes on. It's not as if the US is vetoing laws like "Everyone gets to bomb a part of Florida next week" or "International Law re-zoning New York as New Moscow, giving sovreignty to Russia". They're sensible laws, like nuclear non-proliferation etc. Laws that help everyone. But oh no - if they curb the US's insatiable thirst for power, then they have to be devices of the pinko commie leftie socialist bastards, huh?
Most Americans just don't see how wacko the US acts in the international community. They all think the US is a great, upstanding member - not the mad Dr. Frankenstein power-crazed maniac that the rest of the world sees.
I know America isn't the great satan. American foreign policy is the closest thing we have, though.
You can think what you want about me, but you've already told me all I need to know about your feeble grasp of international politics and law.
In short, the very fact that he has mentioned these aspects of his life (and lets them encroach on his political life) means he doesn't represent everyone.
I'm sorry if I offended - that was never my intention.
thanks!
So, he's only representing rich white straight christians. Hardly representative, is it?
(1912) U.S. Marines invade Nicaragua and occupy the country almost continuously until 1933,
(1954) The CIA engineers the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala; 30 years of military dictatorship, repression, and violence follow,
(1961) The U.S. attempts to overthrow the revolutionary Cuban government at the Bay of Pigs,
(1965) Johnson sends 22,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to combat the constitutional forces trying to regain power,
(1981) The Reagan Administration begins the contra war against Nicaraguan civilians,
(1983) The U.S. invades Grenada to overthrow a popular government,
(1989) The U.S. invades Panama to arrest accused drug dealer Manual Noriega.
And that's just in its own continent. Funnily enough, the US also invaded two of those countries on your list, only first. Go figure.
Seriously - if he can't pocket money from something, he's not interested. It sounds like a typical bashing of an unpopular politician, but it's true. 100%. He's the epitome of the professional politician. His wheels are greased by cash. He doesn't care about America. I mean, he's dealt with the Bin Ladens and the Taliban, all for money.
Bush = very, very bad for everyone. Even those he says he's standing for.
Obviously, for you to say what you did, you don't know much about it at all...
It would certainly help, that's for sure.
Do some research. Read a little. You'll see that it's easy enough to not break any rules if you decide what rules come into effect.
The US is part of the world. It has to start acting like it.
Sickening.
People never mention that! During the war on Iraq, people were going on about how many security council resolutions Iraq broke, but they never mentioned the amount the US vetoed, thereby avoiding having to break them when they did what they wanted.
The US vetoes more international laws than any other country. It's not hard to see how it breaks as few international laws as it does.
Anyway. America doesn't care about the treaties it has signed up to, if it gets in the way.
If we're talking about corruption, you need look no further than the whitehouse for the definitive example of a corrupt public office.
Corruptus In Extremis, as they say ;)