No, it's called a strawman. That's where you attempt to make an analogy that is so ridiculous it stops being an analogy.
So excuse me if I didn't get your exagerated connections.
Also, no, the odds of dying from smoking is not greater then playing Russian roulette. Your odds in playing Russian roulette is surprisingly high due to the fact of only a 16% change of getting a cylinder with a bullet modified by the weight of the bullet increasing the odds of the cylinder stopping with the bullet in a lower position.
And yes, we can agree that playing normal Russian roulette is an idiotic activity.
I think one of the main differences is that MS did it when installing something completely unrelated. Why would you think that Firefox would be altered for a dot net installation? However, for a Firefox installation you would expect Firefox to be altered.
However, there should be outrage over the actions or behavior of the plugin. I just don't think it is the same thing.
I know it's hard to RTFA when they didn't even provide a link. I think the story is taking some creative licenses with what Murdoch has said.
"Murdoch acknowledged that the Journal recently negotiated a slightly larger share of the revenues Amazon gets from selling Kindle subscriptions to the paper, "but it's not a big number, and we're not encouraging it at all because we don't get the names of the subscribers," he said. "Kindle treats them as their subscribers, not as ours, and I think that will eventually cause a break with us."
Is what he said and it appears to me that he is using that fact as a bargaining step to get more of the revenue model. It's no secrete that if you subscribe to the WSJ either in print of online directly, they have your names and can used those for marketing research and other ways to profit directly or to maximize their own profit. In this case, I'm thinking they just want a larger share of the profits and brought the lack of names up as a bargaining position.
Actually, the story is misleading. Murdock has stated he wanted more revenue from Amazon and complained that Amazon treat readers of the Wall Street Journal as their customers and not the WSJ's. He said we don't even get their names.
Like it or not, current subscriptions to almost any news site outside of on the Kindle gives them the names of the subscribers which can be a revenue stream from marketing and so on. He didn't exactly say he wanted the names, he was using the lack of getting the names as reasoning to why he wanted more money.
Someone else posted this link but I'm not sure it is what the story submission is about. In that page, Murdoch mentions the names as Amazon is treating subscriptions to the WSJ on the kindle as their customers and not the Wall Street Journals. As for the names, it makes sense in this light because if those customers were to access the Wall street journal by any other subscription method, the WSJ would have their information already.
So I guess the question might be- does Amazon resell the WSJ as a VAR or are they just allowing subscriptions and a conduit to the regular paper.
So your saying that there is a 83% change of getting cancer or some other smoking related disease from smoking smoking? I would like to see the stats on that because they are completely different then anything I have ever seen. And yes, 5 bullets in a 6 shot revolver would be an 83% chance of it discharging and from there, your chances of dieing from it are less but still high.
I think perhaps it is you that doesn't know how to use statistical information. the risks are simply not that high.
Actually, getting cancer and death are not the same thing. People risk getting injured and diseased every day to a greater risk of getting cancer from smoking. In fact, You can probably go to any public restroom and watch any number of people leave without washing their hands whether they do either number one or two. And yes, intestinal bowel diseases which can be transmitted from your own crap can be deadly when in a your stomach and not intestines not to mention that you would have touched something that someone else touched.
Now the interesting thing is that Smoking risks can be negated with quitting by certain ages. For instance, if you quit smoking by age 50, you are 100 times less likely to get cancer as a result of smoking and if you quit by age 30, your increased risks are negligible compared to the risks from normal airborne pollutants we encounter every day.
Also, there has been reports of studies that suggest moderate smoking can actually be more beneficial then detrimental.
It does seem that we are in agreement. I must have pulled information from previous posts in this thread and attributed it to you or something. On second reading, you are not saying what I thought you were and my comment is probably best served to one of the parents.
I never tried to count the true health costs. I was responding to the specific point about watching someone die of cancer. Just because you smoke does not mean you will get cancer and not smoking does not mean you will not get cancer.
It's also the same with the points you brought up. There is a correlation but not a proven causation to date.
According to the DMCA, there are fair use exceptions listed at the library of congress that separate certain acts from the illegality of it according to the DMCA. I'm not sure how you think you can know about the DMCA's restrictions and not know about those.
Anyways, if you visit the copyright offices site and select the rulmaking for anticurcumvention links, in the 2006 rules is specifically says "The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years."
Now, if you check out section 5, you will clearly see that jailbreaking is covered with "5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."
I'm not sure this would be much of the same. For one, the jail braking doesn't really enable pirated stuff to play, just non-approved stuff. For two, the jail breaking is being done by the user and not some guy selling the modified devices after the fact. Selling modified phones or Xboxes isn't really the same as you having control over your own property.
Finally, I think this arena might already be covered by the Fair Use exceptions to the restrictions on the copyright protection laws. If it isn't, it will clearly send a message that it needs to be and might even be so because of some court case. Again, selling modified devices is not the same as making your own device work in ways it wasn't intended as long as violating copyright isn't the goal.
It's not really that difficult to show your ID was cloned. It isn't like it doesn't happen today with current IDs. Illegal aliens are doing it, underage drinkers do it (often on college campuses), and people purpetrating ID theft do it.
Where the problem is going to be is when the person has some sort of motive and opportunity to commit whatever crime is in question. Most often the ID evidence will have a witness saying it was in fact you and in some cases there will be video or photographic evidence to collaborate.
The situation will not be much different then it is today.
Well, I'm not trolling at all sumdumass... I'm just not obligated to answer your vitriolic acidic questions nor your pleasant questions especially when you keep asserting that I've not provided answers when the fact of the record shows that I have.
You have not provide answers to my questions. I'm not sure why you even think that. However, you are right, the record doesn't lie so point to them. Troll.
Personal civilian self defense in the two situations that you assert happened is quite different than what I've been talking about assuming the facts are as you assert they are of course. I'm sorry to hear that you've been through such situations. I sure hope that never happens to me but I'm prepared to defend myself or others from death by an attack at an appropriate level of violence in response.
Personal civilian self defense is quite different than murder, death and killing at the political level.
No it isn't much different. We or our allies were attacked, we responded. Did you expect us to sit there and take it, letting our own civilians die at the hands of terrorist because we support one of our allies?
As for being a coward... not so dude. I'm just against State Based Mass Murder and those that support it. The largest killers on the planet are Governments. Look it up.
It doesn't matter if the largest killers on the planet are government. When conflicts happen, they escalate when typical solutions do no work. If you want to end the killing, you need to resolve the conflict and provide a workable solution that has not already failed.
Oh, 911 was a revenge military style based response by Al-Qaeda to prior USA Attacks against Al-Qaeda. That is a well documented historical fact. The USA and Al-Qaeda had been at war for quite some time before 911. Al-Qaeda asserts that the USA started it with earlier attacks. From their perspective the USA started it. This is an essentially undisputed historical set of facts.
No it was not and it was never claimed to have been by Al Qeada or anyone involved with them. You cannot rewrite history. Bin Laden Specifically said it was because of our support for Israel. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said the same damn thing. That was their fucking motivation comming from their own damn mouths. Whatever you have been told, you have been lied to and lacked the wherewithal to check it out on your own or are purposely lieing right now.
If you fail to comprehend your enemies thinking you'll fail in ending the problem with them.
And if you keep making shit up, you will never address the real problems and get peace.
The USA has a long history of indiscriminate killing, death and murder around the world and in Islamic countries not to mention the support of despicable dictatorships around the world and in the middle east in particular. These are facts of history.
And you point is what? We helped save Europe from the nazi's, attempted to save Vietnam and did for the most part, save south Korea from Communist invaders. We saves Afghanistan from Soviet occupation and Kuwait from a Dictator attempting to extract revenge because some Kuwaiti called Iraqi women 10 dollar whores. Now you may think it would have been better if we stayed out of those problems but judging from the actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and so on, it is likely that a lot less people die then would of if we didn't act.
Death and destruction around the world won't solve the problems the world faces nor protect the USA as the violence and death that you send forth and bring down on people simply perpetuates the problem leading to the next generation of your victims taking up arms against you.
So yes, for your support of exporting death to other parts of
There is no speculation. To try to claim that us dumping billions of tons of extra C02 in the atmosphere and claim it has no bearing on how much heat is retained by the atmosphere is to ignore physics.
Show me the formula that says catastrophic endings are going to happen because of a change of roughly.015 percent in Co2 content or less then.00001 percent of all the Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is enough to raise the temp of the world.
And yes, that's what your billions of tons equals out to.
How about challenging their claims. Obviously if they aren't true then it will be easy to show. However, if they are true, then wherever they get their funding from is irrelevant isn't it?
That's what is so damn frustrating about the global warming holy rollers. When something is brought up that challenges their faith, it is never addresses but the claim is shot down or considered invalid because of some ancient connection to an oil company 50 damn years ago or something. And with all these counters not being challenged, they somehow claim that the skeptics are delusional when in fact it is them ignoring claimed evidence however right or wrong it may be.
But it is not easy to determine if the amounts of Co2 are actually having the claimed effects verses other sources. One of the biggest challenges is that so far, none of the models using the Co2 as a source has been able to come close to being accurate to date. There is no evidence of Co2 overwhelming the carbon cycle and to put your billions of tons into perspective, the increases that are claiming to be the problem are less then 1 percent of the total green house gasses in the atmosphere and less then.001 percent of the total contents of the atmosphere.
Are you really convinced that this little amount of gas is going to cause irreparable damage? If so, then why does all the solutions to do not address the Carbon directly and instead, attempt to extort money from companies and people and will make no difference in a reduction because they are by design intended to prop up third world countries (Kyoto) and it is known that if third world citizens reach first world lifestyles, their carbon usage increases 8 fold.
Now you seem to be one of those brain washed buffoons, so tell me why and how this is so sound when we can't even get the temp data to study it for irregularities and manipulated data which could coincide with political and monetary goals of some.
I guess you are missing the point. You don't need to pay to view, you need to pay to get extra. It doesn't matter who is willing to pay, some people will be, some will not be, but anyone can get the majority of the articles without paying if they follow the WSJ model.
Not all Open source software is free and in beer. The free as in beer model isn't even required for free software especially the GPL or BSD or similar licenses.
The facts are this, I liked Bush at first. When he decided to go to war with Iraq, I thought we all were going to be in big trouble if he doesn't find WMD's that are a threat, specifically nuclear material. We'll none have been found period.
First of all, you are completely our of line. Because none were found does not mean none were there nor does it mean that we didn't believe they were there. As it turned out, we were wrong but this entire idea that people were purposely lying is fallacious speculation based on what they want to believe rather then any fact. Second, there are reasons to why they havn't been found, some of those reasons include Saddam insisting on making people believe he maintained WMDs out of fear of attacks from neighboring countries.
The "sent it all somewhere else" like Syria answer is a lame answer, because that is just a wild guess. Where is the smoking gun?
Actually, it isn't a wild guess as I pointed out in the very first post in this thread that you thought it necessary to chime in about. Iraqi generals said they used civilian military aircraft and humanitarian missions to Syria to smuggle the WMDs out with the help of some Russian Special forces. This is not a wild guess, it is an actual claim made by a person (actually a couple people) who were in positions to know at the time. The validity of the claim may be in question but that says nothing to someone making the claim to have first hand knowledge of it. And yes, we do have radar reports and intelligence detailing increased traffic both in the air and on the ground during the time it took place but it was also during the time a damn broke in Syria and Iraq was supposedly sending aid to them. That part there is undeniable.
Also, the only reason it was brought up by me is because the parent poster suggested Iran and I corrected him with Sada's recollection of the events.
Bush didn't even have the sense to fake some evidence. Who cares about chemical weapons? Like I said before, they are simple for 2 guys to make.
Which indicates that he actually did believe they were there and would be found despite claims that he lied. In fact, the entire world admitted to believing they were there but differed on what should have been done about them.
As far as me citing the page, I didn't but you did, I just provided a link that you didn't. At the top of the page it does say 2004. I'll quote it for you "In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden." Before that it is mention as alleged. You are right about him being a terrorist though.
He had interactions and connections to Al Qeada before 2004 as the site mentions. It wasn't an alegience like what happened after 2004 but we cannot deny ties between the two as they have mutually aided each other well before the brokered support in 2004 became a reality.
That is a problem with looking for the information you need to prove your point. It can often lead to valuable and contradictory information being overlooks because someone things their job was done.
We'll you are obviously not with me. Do I consider you a threat merely because we don't agree and your not "with me" on this particular issue. We'll not really because it's only a discussion. Bush may have not meant it to sound that way, but since I can't read minds, only he will know. It sure sounds like he only wanted "yes men" in his administration though.
As I previously explained, the with us or against us doctrine was to make it clear that situations like Afghanistan and the Taliban in which we gave them millions (or billions) in aid just before 9/11 would not happen again. If they were not aligned on our interest and actually harbored the people we consider enemies, we will no longer consider them with us but against us. We knew t
It doesn't matter what I have done, the fact that it was legally justified means it was justified and legal.
However, you are trolling, you are a cowards and there is no reason for you to be bringing this up this late in the game after we both already expressed desires to end the discussion.
And if you must know, they were in the personal self defense of myself and one other person. One was with a home invasions in which the perpetrator was specifically attempting to kill a person he was accused of rapping her just a day before. The other was during a robbery attempt at a convenient store in which the robbers already killed one person while saying something about no witnesses and I believed I would not survive the night if I didn't act.
Now I have answered more questions then you have, go fuck off and be a coward with your grandpa.
A lot of times, the politician has the vested interest too.
If not directly in the companies investing in the tech, or donations from people doing so, in that the tech will be produced and provide jobs in their area increasing the chances for reelection.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's called a strawman. That's where you attempt to make an analogy that is so ridiculous it stops being an analogy.
So excuse me if I didn't get your exagerated connections.
Also, no, the odds of dying from smoking is not greater then playing Russian roulette. Your odds in playing Russian roulette is surprisingly high due to the fact of only a 16% change of getting a cylinder with a bullet modified by the weight of the bullet increasing the odds of the cylinder stopping with the bullet in a lower position.
And yes, we can agree that playing normal Russian roulette is an idiotic activity.
I think one of the main differences is that MS did it when installing something completely unrelated. Why would you think that Firefox would be altered for a dot net installation? However, for a Firefox installation you would expect Firefox to be altered.
However, there should be outrage over the actions or behavior of the plugin. I just don't think it is the same thing.
I know we should never excuse ignorance for malice but in this case, I think it was malice. IT appears what he said doesn't match the story summery.
I know it's hard to RTFA when they didn't even provide a link. I think the story is taking some creative licenses with what Murdoch has said.
Is what he said and it appears to me that he is using that fact as a bargaining step to get more of the revenue model. It's no secrete that if you subscribe to the WSJ either in print of online directly, they have your names and can used those for marketing research and other ways to profit directly or to maximize their own profit. In this case, I'm thinking they just want a larger share of the profits and brought the lack of names up as a bargaining position.
Actually, the story is misleading. Murdock has stated he wanted more revenue from Amazon and complained that Amazon treat readers of the Wall Street Journal as their customers and not the WSJ's. He said we don't even get their names.
Like it or not, current subscriptions to almost any news site outside of on the Kindle gives them the names of the subscribers which can be a revenue stream from marketing and so on. He didn't exactly say he wanted the names, he was using the lack of getting the names as reasoning to why he wanted more money.
Someone else posted this link but I'm not sure it is what the story submission is about. In that page, Murdoch mentions the names as Amazon is treating subscriptions to the WSJ on the kindle as their customers and not the Wall Street Journals. As for the names, it makes sense in this light because if those customers were to access the Wall street journal by any other subscription method, the WSJ would have their information already.
So I guess the question might be- does Amazon resell the WSJ as a VAR or are they just allowing subscriptions and a conduit to the regular paper.
So your saying that there is a 83% change of getting cancer or some other smoking related disease from smoking smoking? I would like to see the stats on that because they are completely different then anything I have ever seen. And yes, 5 bullets in a 6 shot revolver would be an 83% chance of it discharging and from there, your chances of dieing from it are less but still high.
I think perhaps it is you that doesn't know how to use statistical information. the risks are simply not that high.
Actually, getting cancer and death are not the same thing. People risk getting injured and diseased every day to a greater risk of getting cancer from smoking. In fact, You can probably go to any public restroom and watch any number of people leave without washing their hands whether they do either number one or two. And yes, intestinal bowel diseases which can be transmitted from your own crap can be deadly when in a your stomach and not intestines not to mention that you would have touched something that someone else touched.
Now the interesting thing is that Smoking risks can be negated with quitting by certain ages. For instance, if you quit smoking by age 50, you are 100 times less likely to get cancer as a result of smoking and if you quit by age 30, your increased risks are negligible compared to the risks from normal airborne pollutants we encounter every day.
Also, there has been reports of studies that suggest moderate smoking can actually be more beneficial then detrimental.
It does seem that we are in agreement. I must have pulled information from previous posts in this thread and attributed it to you or something. On second reading, you are not saying what I thought you were and my comment is probably best served to one of the parents.
I would like to see some figures on that. Can you link where you are getting your information?
I never tried to count the true health costs. I was responding to the specific point about watching someone die of cancer. Just because you smoke does not mean you will get cancer and not smoking does not mean you will not get cancer.
It's also the same with the points you brought up. There is a correlation but not a proven causation to date.
According to the DMCA, there are fair use exceptions listed at the library of congress that separate certain acts from the illegality of it according to the DMCA. I'm not sure how you think you can know about the DMCA's restrictions and not know about those.
Anyways, if you visit the copyright offices site and select the rulmaking for anticurcumvention links, in the 2006 rules is specifically says "The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years."
Now, if you check out section 5, you will clearly see that jailbreaking is covered with "5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."
So no, it is not by default illegal.
And of course we know that everyone who smokes gets cancer right?
Actually, it's less then 20% of smokers who get cancer from their smoking. Still a high number but we take higher odds and risk our life every day.
I'm not sure this would be much of the same. For one, the jail braking doesn't really enable pirated stuff to play, just non-approved stuff. For two, the jail breaking is being done by the user and not some guy selling the modified devices after the fact. Selling modified phones or Xboxes isn't really the same as you having control over your own property.
Finally, I think this arena might already be covered by the Fair Use exceptions to the restrictions on the copyright protection laws. If it isn't, it will clearly send a message that it needs to be and might even be so because of some court case. Again, selling modified devices is not the same as making your own device work in ways it wasn't intended as long as violating copyright isn't the goal.
It's not really that difficult to show your ID was cloned. It isn't like it doesn't happen today with current IDs. Illegal aliens are doing it, underage drinkers do it (often on college campuses), and people purpetrating ID theft do it.
Where the problem is going to be is when the person has some sort of motive and opportunity to commit whatever crime is in question. Most often the ID evidence will have a witness saying it was in fact you and in some cases there will be video or photographic evidence to collaborate.
The situation will not be much different then it is today.
You have not provide answers to my questions. I'm not sure why you even think that. However, you are right, the record doesn't lie so point to them. Troll.
No it isn't much different. We or our allies were attacked, we responded. Did you expect us to sit there and take it, letting our own civilians die at the hands of terrorist because we support one of our allies?
It doesn't matter if the largest killers on the planet are government. When conflicts happen, they escalate when typical solutions do no work. If you want to end the killing, you need to resolve the conflict and provide a workable solution that has not already failed.
No it was not and it was never claimed to have been by Al Qeada or anyone involved with them. You cannot rewrite history. Bin Laden Specifically said it was because of our support for Israel. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said the same damn thing. That was their fucking motivation comming from their own damn mouths. Whatever you have been told, you have been lied to and lacked the wherewithal to check it out on your own or are purposely lieing right now.
And if you keep making shit up, you will never address the real problems and get peace.
And you point is what? We helped save Europe from the nazi's, attempted to save Vietnam and did for the most part, save south Korea from Communist invaders. We saves Afghanistan from Soviet occupation and Kuwait from a Dictator attempting to extract revenge because some Kuwaiti called Iraqi women 10 dollar whores. Now you may think it would have been better if we stayed out of those problems but judging from the actions of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and so on, it is likely that a lot less people die then would of if we didn't act.
Show me the formula that says catastrophic endings are going to happen because of a change of roughly .015 percent in Co2 content or less then .00001 percent of all the Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is enough to raise the temp of the world.
And yes, that's what your billions of tons equals out to.
How about challenging their claims. Obviously if they aren't true then it will be easy to show. However, if they are true, then wherever they get their funding from is irrelevant isn't it?
That's what is so damn frustrating about the global warming holy rollers. When something is brought up that challenges their faith, it is never addresses but the claim is shot down or considered invalid because of some ancient connection to an oil company 50 damn years ago or something. And with all these counters not being challenged, they somehow claim that the skeptics are delusional when in fact it is them ignoring claimed evidence however right or wrong it may be.
But it is not easy to determine if the amounts of Co2 are actually having the claimed effects verses other sources. One of the biggest challenges is that so far, none of the models using the Co2 as a source has been able to come close to being accurate to date. There is no evidence of Co2 overwhelming the carbon cycle and to put your billions of tons into perspective, the increases that are claiming to be the problem are less then 1 percent of the total green house gasses in the atmosphere and less then .001 percent of the total contents of the atmosphere.
Are you really convinced that this little amount of gas is going to cause irreparable damage? If so, then why does all the solutions to do not address the Carbon directly and instead, attempt to extort money from companies and people and will make no difference in a reduction because they are by design intended to prop up third world countries (Kyoto) and it is known that if third world citizens reach first world lifestyles, their carbon usage increases 8 fold.
Now you seem to be one of those brain washed buffoons, so tell me why and how this is so sound when we can't even get the temp data to study it for irregularities and manipulated data which could coincide with political and monetary goals of some.
I guess you are missing the point. You don't need to pay to view, you need to pay to get extra. It doesn't matter who is willing to pay, some people will be, some will not be, but anyone can get the majority of the articles without paying if they follow the WSJ model.
Not everything is given away free.
What about a project who used the GPL but charges for the product like Redhat enterprise server or something.
Not all Open source software is free and in beer. The free as in beer model isn't even required for free software especially the GPL or BSD or similar licenses.
First of all, you are completely our of line. Because none were found does not mean none were there nor does it mean that we didn't believe they were there. As it turned out, we were wrong but this entire idea that people were purposely lying is fallacious speculation based on what they want to believe rather then any fact. Second, there are reasons to why they havn't been found, some of those reasons include Saddam insisting on making people believe he maintained WMDs out of fear of attacks from neighboring countries.
Actually, it isn't a wild guess as I pointed out in the very first post in this thread that you thought it necessary to chime in about. Iraqi generals said they used civilian military aircraft and humanitarian missions to Syria to smuggle the WMDs out with the help of some Russian Special forces. This is not a wild guess, it is an actual claim made by a person (actually a couple people) who were in positions to know at the time. The validity of the claim may be in question but that says nothing to someone making the claim to have first hand knowledge of it. And yes, we do have radar reports and intelligence detailing increased traffic both in the air and on the ground during the time it took place but it was also during the time a damn broke in Syria and Iraq was supposedly sending aid to them. That part there is undeniable.
Also, the only reason it was brought up by me is because the parent poster suggested Iran and I corrected him with Sada's recollection of the events.
Which indicates that he actually did believe they were there and would be found despite claims that he lied. In fact, the entire world admitted to believing they were there but differed on what should have been done about them.
He had interactions and connections to Al Qeada before 2004 as the site mentions. It wasn't an alegience like what happened after 2004 but we cannot deny ties between the two as they have mutually aided each other well before the brokered support in 2004 became a reality.
That is a problem with looking for the information you need to prove your point. It can often lead to valuable and contradictory information being overlooks because someone things their job was done.
As I previously explained, the with us or against us doctrine was to make it clear that situations like Afghanistan and the Taliban in which we gave them millions (or billions) in aid just before 9/11 would not happen again. If they were not aligned on our interest and actually harbored the people we consider enemies, we will no longer consider them with us but against us. We knew t
It doesn't matter what I have done, the fact that it was legally justified means it was justified and legal.
However, you are trolling, you are a cowards and there is no reason for you to be bringing this up this late in the game after we both already expressed desires to end the discussion.
And if you must know, they were in the personal self defense of myself and one other person. One was with a home invasions in which the perpetrator was specifically attempting to kill a person he was accused of rapping her just a day before. The other was during a robbery attempt at a convenient store in which the robbers already killed one person while saying something about no witnesses and I believed I would not survive the night if I didn't act.
Now I have answered more questions then you have, go fuck off and be a coward with your grandpa.
A lot of times, the politician has the vested interest too.
If not directly in the companies investing in the tech, or donations from people doing so, in that the tech will be produced and provide jobs in their area increasing the chances for reelection.