However, I have watched the entire Loose Change video. With my own knowledge of physics, I was then able to debunk it for the friend who sent me the link. (The only reason I watched the whole thing is because he asked me to explain to him any flaws in their theories.)
9/11 might have been used post-hoc as a pretext to invade Afghanistan (unlikely) and Iraq (probable), but if it was a government conspiracy (it wasn't), then it certainly didn't go down the way the Loose Change folks describe.
First of all, the poster wasn't necessarily trying to define emergency. They were stating that emergencies are "situations that are out of the ordinary and demand immediate attention and that have a definite end". Let's compare that with your definition: "a sudden unforeseen crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action." OK, "unforeseen" seems to imply "out of the ordinary", "demand immediate attention" seems to imply "crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action", so "definite end" is really the only difference, right? Well, after a while, things that never end are no longer unforeseen, right? Where you're right is that the OP seems to imply that there be a knowable end. What starts as an emergency can eventually become a chronic problem. At that point, it's no longer an emergency, by the very definition you gave. Do you think the Iraq war now constitutes "a sudden unforeseen crisis"?
Like I said elsewhere, I'm getting really sick of liberal trolls trying to redefine the English language in order to justify their hatred for Bush.
I'll grant you there are a lot of liberals who jump on Bush for things they would have forgiven Clinton for, just as there are a lot of conservatives who jumped on Clinton for things they are willing to now forgive Bush for. If you really believe that only liberals do this, then I think you're not really paying attention. Note: this does not excuse the behavior of those liberals who either go overboard in attacking Bush (as you and others have said, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to challenge Bush) or who are far too quick to forgive politicians they like.
Yes, and depriving != seizing. However, freezing => depriving. (That's the symbol for implies, not a backwards greater than or equal to.) That said, I'm unconvinced that this is overturning the fifth amendment in any new way. I was just pointing out that freezing => depriving. I'm not the one "mangling the English language." (Well, not here at least.) For some reason, the people most adamantly arguing that this has nothing to do with the fifth amendment keep replacing the word deprive with seize, even though the fifth amendment uses the word deprive:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
First of all, sequestration is not a good idea, IMO. Have you heard what's happened before when naturally occurring concentrations of CO2 have been released? Mass death.
Secondly, WTF?
maybe all this excess CO2 isn't from us after all
Have you read any of the research? Have you heard of a single explanation for the CO2 besides humans? If so, can you name it?
(If you argue that the CO2 is being released from the oceans as the Earth is being heated up by the Sun, I might have to scream. First of all, we have satellites in space that measure the solar output. Secondly, the CO2 concentrations in the oceans are increasing, not decreasing.)
Again, no. If I seize your assets, I can do with them as I wish, including selling them. If I freeze your assets, I can't sell them, but I prevent you from selling them.
I.e., you've effectively deprived me of them.
Uh, you do know that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, don't you?
I'm not the original poster, but if you put the emphasis in the "right" place, that doesn't contradict what he said:
It's arguable if what they do can be considered "due process" under the law, but it's a lot better than what this order gives the Treasury Department the authority to do.
(To pollar oposits using each other rederick to make their point)
Man, I really hate to do this, but I have to point out that Firefox 2.0 has spellcheck built in.
(The words you were looking for are: polar, opposites, and rhetoric.)
The apes did not become monkeys, however. They became other apes (bonobos and chimpanzees). Apes (including us), monkeys, and lemurs are all primates. However, apes and monkeys are no more the same thing than chimpanzees and humans are.
Also, the whole grasslands thing is only one hypothesis. There are others. (I'm not saying the grasslands hypothesis is wrong, mind you.)
Your explanation is great, except for two things: (1) those were apes (common ancestors of chimpanzees, bonobos, and us), and not monkeys, and (2) the common ancestor is no more - we on the other hand, have also remained apes.
The only type of missile this missile shield would stop would be an IBCM. Any other type, like the ones that terrorists would use, would not get out far enough and not take long enough to hit to be able to intercept it.
Right. I should have said Iran or some other Middle East country (since that is what has been officially stated anyway), and not "a terrorist group".
What a working missile shield will do is completely upset the power balance that has been in place since the cold war.
You'll notice that elsewhere I've said they're probably a bad idea. However, to complain that a missile shield won't stop planes is like complaining that aspirin won't cure cancer. The missile shield is designed to stop missiles. If it won't stop missiles, well then, that's a valid complaint. There are all kinds of other valid complaints against missile shields (as you point out), but I was addressing what I feel is an invalid complaint (that missile shields won't stop X).
I just disagree with that premise, even at the prime directive level. At some theoretical level, if everyone just stops supporting a dictator, he topples, but, the problem is, a smart dictator can keep a large enough minority happy while trampling a majority.
Yes, I agree that it's a simplistic theory, and I probably overplayed my sarcasm card a little bit. However, and this was my point - subscribing to that theory is not the same as believing that the dictator is good or that democracy is bad.
So to me, given that argument, the honest way someone opposed to interventions in all of these places really would say, "I don't really like dictatorships, but, I really don't give a shit enough about these other people to want to risk our own national resources on it." That's the honest answer, but, those who opposed the war, for the most part, would never really answer like that, because it boxes them in on other international goals. So they say something else.
I appreciate your perspective on this, but I would argue that an equally honest response is "I don't really like dictatorships, but, I don't know that what I plan on doing will make things better. If I don't have a plan that has a high likelihood of success, then it's probably best that I don't risk making things worse." Iraq is a prime example of this. One could argue that there was a way to make things better. It's hard to imagine a situation worse than living under Hussein. However, we've come pretty close to creating that with our sectarian violence. Before we got involved, about half the country was afraid for their lives (I'm making up the percentage, but you get the idea) and the other half knew they were fine as long as they kissed up. Not a good situation at all, don't get me wrong. Now, almost everyone in the country is afraid for their lives. This is almost as bad as what we did in Nicaragua.
Really, all of this talk about impeaching Bush because he "lied" is so much nonsense.
I agree completely. There might be other reasons to impeach him, but I haven't heard a compelling case yet. He's hired some terribly incompetent people, shown himself to be quite incompetent as a C-in-C, but none of that is impeachable. Trying to get rid of habeas corpus might have crossed the line, however. It depends on whether you can successfully argue that he just doesn't understand the Constitution.
Me, I think Bush is right about the freedom part, and I like that we're killing lots of islamists, but, also, I'm still holding out for 5 million bpd of crude oil being pumped out of Iraq into Exxon Mobil supertankers, and the $1/gallon gas that goes with it.
Because, even if global warming is caused by man, I want my 350hp V8 car so much that I just don't give a shit. Poor people on the world's coasts are just going to have to pack up their shanty towns and cardboard cities and move.
And, here, you've managed to totally disgust me. You like killing, and you don't care about the future of our world, or about anyone outside of your own small neighborhood, evidently. What's the big deal about a 350hp V8 car that gets you so... excited, anyway? It sounds quite illogical to me.
It's just that when you're faced with the opportunity to sell something you worked hard on (or chanced upon) for a lot of money, you probably will want to get as much of a return on your work as possible. You don't want to be the shmuck who turned down $1000 because he was worried about the exploit ending up in the wrong hands. You'd try to justify it. You'd think 'Oh, Microsoft would find out about this eventually' or (as somebody else commented) 'Microsoft probably wouldn't patch this immediately anyways'.
A guilty conscious wouldn't keep you awake. You'd just realize that there's a lot of shit going on in the world and your one little exploit won't even be noticed.
Then the next day you'd go out and buy a nice home theatre system with all the money you made.
No, I wouldn't. I've made several choices in life that have resulted in less money for me (with full knowledge of that at the time), so I know what kind of choice I'd make if presented this dilemma. I suspect that I am not alone in this. Perhaps I overestimate how many other people are like me in this regard, but consider the possibility that you're underestimating that value.
There already is a cash incentive and bad people are already involved. The idea is to provide a cash incentive for (more) good people to get involved in a positive way.
The key question is, IMO, has their revenue been hurt more than it would cost to pay for vulnerabilities? I'd say it has. Sure, you could argue that the revenue loss is not a large percentage of their total revenue, but presumably paying for the vulnerabilities would cost even less.
There are a lot of intelligent people who would be willing to do it legally for far cheaper prices than the black market will pay to do it illegally. Not everyone is immoral. Personally, I'd like to believe that most people are basically good people.
I was shocked to hear that now the left has evolved to favor dictators and strongmen, and don't even believe that a society whose people are free is fundamentally better than a society whose people are not.
First off, as I'm sure you're aware, there are some in the left who are against almost everything Bush proposes exactly because Bush proposes it. Same with the right and Clinton in the 90's. That said, most of those who were against the Iraq war from the beginning (including many conservatives who had not given up on Reagan) did not believe we should be meddling in the affairs of other countries. No matter how you paint it, that's not the same as favoring "dictators and strongmen" or not thinking "that a society whose people are free is fundamentally better than a society whose people are not." There's this crazy belief that a society whose people are free can't be forced to be free - they have to choose to be free. This idea might even be influenced by Star Trek's prime directive, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Simply, it's not one of these black-and-white worlds, left-or-right, with-us-or-against-us that some people like to paint. It's complex. You can consider yourself "on the left" and be for or against toppling regimes. Similarly with people who consider themselves "on the right".
Slashdot Mirror
However, I have watched the entire Loose Change video. With my own knowledge of physics, I was then able to debunk it for the friend who sent me the link. (The only reason I watched the whole thing is because he asked me to explain to him any flaws in their theories.)
9/11 might have been used post-hoc as a pretext to invade Afghanistan (unlikely) and Iraq (probable), but if it was a government conspiracy (it wasn't), then it certainly didn't go down the way the Loose Change folks describe.
First of all, the poster wasn't necessarily trying to define emergency. They were stating that emergencies are "situations that are out of the ordinary and demand immediate attention and that have a definite end". Let's compare that with your definition: "a sudden unforeseen crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action." OK, "unforeseen" seems to imply "out of the ordinary", "demand immediate attention" seems to imply "crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action", so "definite end" is really the only difference, right? Well, after a while, things that never end are no longer unforeseen, right? Where you're right is that the OP seems to imply that there be a knowable end. What starts as an emergency can eventually become a chronic problem. At that point, it's no longer an emergency, by the very definition you gave. Do you think the Iraq war now constitutes "a sudden unforeseen crisis"?
I'll grant you there are a lot of liberals who jump on Bush for things they would have forgiven Clinton for, just as there are a lot of conservatives who jumped on Clinton for things they are willing to now forgive Bush for. If you really believe that only liberals do this, then I think you're not really paying attention. Note: this does not excuse the behavior of those liberals who either go overboard in attacking Bush (as you and others have said, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to challenge Bush) or who are far too quick to forgive politicians they like.
I would argue "no", and I hope our Supreme Court would agree with me.
First of all, sequestration is not a good idea, IMO. Have you heard what's happened before when naturally occurring concentrations of CO2 have been released? Mass death.
Secondly, WTF?
Have you read any of the research? Have you heard of a single explanation for the CO2 besides humans? If so, can you name it?
(If you argue that the CO2 is being released from the oceans as the Earth is being heated up by the Sun, I might have to scream. First of all, we have satellites in space that measure the solar output. Secondly, the CO2 concentrations in the oceans are increasing, not decreasing.)
(The words you were looking for are: polar, opposites, and rhetoric.)
(and one that is sure to generate its own flamewar)
If Java is based on C++, why does C++ still exist?
Humans evolved from a long line of common parent types to both human and other apes.
The apes did not become monkeys, however. They became other apes (bonobos and chimpanzees). Apes (including us), monkeys, and lemurs are all primates. However, apes and monkeys are no more the same thing than chimpanzees and humans are.
Also, the whole grasslands thing is only one hypothesis. There are others. (I'm not saying the grasslands hypothesis is wrong, mind you.)
Your explanation is great, except for two things: (1) those were apes (common ancestors of chimpanzees, bonobos, and us), and not monkeys, and (2) the common ancestor is no more - we on the other hand, have also remained apes.
We're not monkeys, we're apes, and pretty damn great ones, at that.
I believe part of their point was that if they built their own, they wouldn't have to repartition/reformat the hard drive in order to remove Vista...
I'm sure extra $300 that £300 will get you will cover S&H.
Yes, I agree that it's a simplistic theory, and I probably overplayed my sarcasm card a little bit. However, and this was my point - subscribing to that theory is not the same as believing that the dictator is good or that democracy is bad.
I appreciate your perspective on this, but I would argue that an equally honest response is "I don't really like dictatorships, but, I don't know that what I plan on doing will make things better. If I don't have a plan that has a high likelihood of success, then it's probably best that I don't risk making things worse." Iraq is a prime example of this. One could argue that there was a way to make things better. It's hard to imagine a situation worse than living under Hussein. However, we've come pretty close to creating that with our sectarian violence. Before we got involved, about half the country was afraid for their lives (I'm making up the percentage, but you get the idea) and the other half knew they were fine as long as they kissed up. Not a good situation at all, don't get me wrong. Now, almost everyone in the country is afraid for their lives. This is almost as bad as what we did in Nicaragua.
I agree completely. There might be other reasons to impeach him, but I haven't heard a compelling case yet. He's hired some terribly incompetent people, shown himself to be quite incompetent as a C-in-C, but none of that is impeachable. Trying to get rid of habeas corpus might have crossed the line, however. It depends on whether you can successfully argue that he just doesn't understand the Constitution.
And, here, you've managed to totally disgust me. You like killing, and you don't care about the future of our world, or about anyone outside of your own small neighborhood, evidently. What's the big deal about a 350hp V8 car that gets you so ... excited, anyway? It sounds quite illogical to me.
They're my Mom's. I did set up her web-site, though. :)
It was. Luckily, everyone in the jury got along.
Or, as in my case, you have a father that you think is irreplaceable.
There already is a cash incentive and bad people are already involved. The idea is to provide a cash incentive for (more) good people to get involved in a positive way.
The key question is, IMO, has their revenue been hurt more than it would cost to pay for vulnerabilities? I'd say it has. Sure, you could argue that the revenue loss is not a large percentage of their total revenue, but presumably paying for the vulnerabilities would cost even less.
There are a lot of intelligent people who would be willing to do it legally for far cheaper prices than the black market will pay to do it illegally. Not everyone is immoral. Personally, I'd like to believe that most people are basically good people.
Using an exploit maliciously is, but finding the exploit is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing. Hence, it should be rewarded.
But the intention was to warn you that I am not a topologist.
First off, as I'm sure you're aware, there are some in the left who are against almost everything Bush proposes exactly because Bush proposes it. Same with the right and Clinton in the 90's. That said, most of those who were against the Iraq war from the beginning (including many conservatives who had not given up on Reagan) did not believe we should be meddling in the affairs of other countries. No matter how you paint it, that's not the same as favoring "dictators and strongmen" or not thinking "that a society whose people are free is fundamentally better than a society whose people are not." There's this crazy belief that a society whose people are free can't be forced to be free - they have to choose to be free. This idea might even be influenced by Star Trek's prime directive, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Simply, it's not one of these black-and-white worlds, left-or-right, with-us-or-against-us that some people like to paint. It's complex. You can consider yourself "on the left" and be for or against toppling regimes. Similarly with people who consider themselves "on the right".