And I believe that statement is not the actual scenario. If it was, we would long since have been toasted, say about 4.5 billion years ago because this planet started out far hotter then than it is now.
It's interesting that you referenced the period 4.5 billion years ago, because it just so happens to be related to my minor critique of your assessment.
Around 4.5 billion years ago is when scientists have determined life began. This phenomenon is something you should consider in your evaluation of the conservation of energy from the sun. A negligible few organisms aside, nearly every form of the life on this planet relies either directly or indirectly on energy derived from the sun. To put this in perspective, try to imagine the sum of the energy is being converted in every one of the thousands of chemical reactions going on in every cell of every organism on the planet. Now add to that the energy stored within every complex molecule in every one of said cells. This large amount of energy being stored/converted that we've hypothesized all comes from the sun and, yet, isn't found in the form of heat (yet anyway) or reflected via light.
I would imagine that any real assessment (and, don't get me wrong, I'm not really holding your post to that standard) of the Earth's net energy values would have to account for the amount of energy absorbtion from life itself.
...I've never understood why it's not okay for the government to enforce the law, but it's all fine and dandy to kill law enforcement officers.
Revengefully lighting a place on fire and watching its inhabitants burn isn't enforcing the law--it's setting an example for those who would consider resisting (regardless of the validity of the reason) in the future.
I would have no problem with the Waco incident if the police had killed only the men resisting, but they didn't. Their actions killed EVERYBODY. If John Ashcroft had done the same, liberals would be screaming Nazi analogies and for impeachment of Bush himself. And for the first time, they would be right in doing so.
I realize that computers don't lie. That's not really my point. The idea is that, because "the computer doesn't lie," the only logical conclusion for most people is that if a dispute arises, YOU must be the one lying. Even if you know you aren't lying, however, you're likely to accept that perhaps you are mistaken.
You know, I think the greater problem is the public perception of the infallibility of computers.
Example: I went to a movie rental store (Moviegallery) and gave the clerk the movie I wanted. I didn't have my card, so I just handed her my license as ID. Soon I'm informed that I have two late-fees totaling $15.00. I asked her what movies, and she tells me, indeed two movies I remember renting, followed by the statement "Computers don't lie, sir." A bit confused, I simply paid the fee and left. At home, I was looking at my receipt thinking about what she said and soon realized that the name wasn't mine on the account holder. The account holder had a different middle initial...
This incident led to an insight about how most people perceive computers. To most people computers are infallible, magical devices. Unlike us, most people don't understand and don't care to understand HOW they work. The fact that their computer can instantaneously solve 233^10, allow them to talk across the world, do their taxes for them, and so on only serves to deify computers.
So, what happens when people are placed in what you term "adversarial" situations against what they perceive to be an omniscient opponent? They concede, and if they don't, the perception by others is that they're lying, because, after all, computers don't lie.
This leads to another interesting possibility. Perhaps the push to computers in government and commerce has less to do with increased efficiency, and more to do with control. Examples:
"Sorry, sir, it's not MY fault you aren't approved for that loan, it's the computer."
"The computer says your merchandise return patterns are unusual. Therefore, you must be trying to rip us off. We won't refund your money."
"Our records show that you haven't fully paid your bill. Don't believe me? It's right there on the computer!"
"[computerized voice] We are receiving a high volume of calls right now. Please remain on hold and we will assist your call as soon as possible."
What do people do in these situations? They submit. I just can't help but wonder how profitable that fact may be.
I'm not pretending that we're fighting the Crusades. In fact, I don't think this is at all related to Christianity. The use of the word "Crusades" was to provide you with a reference to the period in history I was describing.
I'm not supporting Bush because I'll think he'll "save" me from Islamic extremism. Again, you along with the rest of the liberals who can never be wrong, are putting words in my mouth. I feel that Islamic extremism is a problem that faces the world and that GWB has the correct plan to solve it despite its unpopular nature. I'm supporting a political opinion.
Why do you guys even participate in democracy if you consider any opinion that differs from yours based on ignorance, fear, or bigotry? If you expect everyone to feel the same way on every issue as yourself, why even bother with the formality of voting?
I've heard this argument quite a bit. The problem I have with it is that it makes that assumption that war can be a successful method of fighting terror.
No, you're right. War is not a successful method of fighting terror. In fact, foreign wars only create terrorism as they create conditions which make individuals turn to such things as extremist religions.
Unfortunately, what you fail to see is that our strategy isn't based upon killing as many terrorists as possible. We can agree that such a plan would be stupid. And as many have criticized the Bush Administration for, we have much better targets than Iraq if that were the plan.
The real goal is establishing an economically successful, democratic muslim society. Now THAT would completely undermine the arabic cultural influences that promote extremism, which WOULD lead to less terrorism. And Iraq is the most ideal place to establish one. They have just been freed from the oppression of a brutal despot. Unlike Saudi-Arabia they have a large middle-class. And, most of all, they have abundant the technology and natural resources that will bring prosperity and trade with the rest of the world.
Regardless of what you think of the man himself, Bush undeniably has some smart people around him. The evil-genius depictions on Slashdot of Karl Rove only serve to verify this. I believe that the military involvement in Iraq was a short-term piece of a cognizant long-term strategy. Is it risky? Yes. Is it popular? Obviously not! But if it works, the United States, Iraq, and the rest of the world will stand to benefit.
I'm not psychic; I'm basing what I said on what you posted. If you voted based on terrorism, you voted out of fear.
I'm not the author of the grandparent post, and yet, I too voted for Bush because of his stance with regard to the war on terrorism.
And, while liberals on Slashdot think they can psychoanalyze (or is "condescend" the word I'm looking for?) fifty-nine million people all in one sweeping accusation, I (and I can only speak for myself) did not vote out of fear. I voted because I feel that GWB's plan is the right one. I feel Islamic extremism is undeniably evil, and it's this generation's responsibility to put an end to it seeing as how we are in the unique position to do so.
The way I see it, we are at an important historical juncture--one in which we can finally stamp out Islamic extremism that has plagued the world since slightly before the beginning of the Crusades (when a violent interpretation of the Koran, beginning in Southern Spain took root) via the plan the grandparent briefly layed out. Even if he understood the problem, (and I have no idea if he does, because of his cryptic statements) John Kerry, in my opinion, lacks the initiate and drive to solve it. The right decision isn't always the popular one, and in these cases, following the polls and focus groups will only make the problem worse.
It is kind of sweet being America since you can have a double standard on everything.
Actually, I think it'd be better to be a European where such subtleties aren't even expected or required. Instead, you could do whatever best serves yourself and rest assured that the Americans you love to bitch and moan about will save you when the time comes.
Your entire post can be summed up as some sort of demand that blacks ask nicely for they're Civil Rights and if the man thinks they've suffered enough, then he might give it to them. Seriously, *I'll* be ready to "kill whitey" before I accept that as justice. These people are owed their due under the Constitution.
Really? What part of the Constitution entitles you or ANYONE to money because of heritage or ethnicity?
Just how practical do you think your reparations would be anyway? Did you know that Tiger Woods is 1/4th white, 1/4th black, and half Asian and yet he is STILL considered "black"? So is he only entitled 1/4th of your proposed reparations? Or does that mean that his white heritage cancels out his black heritage and he is not required to give or receive anything? I'm 1/64th American Indian (you know, the people who black people like to forget really got shat on by the whole deal)...what do I get?
White America's relationship with black America has been funded on credit and now the debt is due.
I don't remember taking out a loan. In fact, I don't remember ever even being rude to a black person. Despite being a southerner, none of my ancestors ever owned slaves, and in case you were wondering, it was only the vast MINORITY of southerners who did.
Justice isn't something that transcends generations. Each person only is accountable for his or her own actions. Even if my ancestors HAD owned slaves (which they didn't), I have no more obligations to black people (who you falsely assume are all purely descendents of slaves) than I do to the descendants of a hypothetical person who, for instance, was murdered by one of my ancestors.
All you've managed to tell me is that you're unwilling to guarantee your fellow citizens their rights because of their race. If that's not racist, I'm not sure I know what is.
Listen, I'm for Affirmative Action, but only when it is based upon SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, NOT RACE. Not only is SES a much more objective measure (see: Tiger Woods example) but also isn't based upon some half-assed notion of racial justice.
I have this sneaking suspicion I'm getting trolled here, but oh well:
"Exactly. I watched the election with a circle of people who had faith in the American public going into yesterday and were shocked by the result... truly stunned and flabbergasted."
I realize that there are cultural/ideological differences that put Urban America at odds with that small area of the country between California and New York and that said differences will affect how each of us perceives events.
However, I really have to question your and your friends' logic. How can a, by all standards, very close election have you so dismayed? I could understand your feelings if the vast majority of the country was opposed to what you felt was the morally right choice, as that might be indicative of, as some others have suggested, the establishment of a dangerous ideology. But that's not what happened. Bush won by the skin of his teeth.
So, the question remains: why have you "lost your faith in the American public"? Because a certain segment doesn't agree with you? Should the people you don't agree with similarly lose faith in the American public for the same reason? What's the point in democracy if everybody is expected to agree?
"It's now clear that we hate the majority and that they hate us."
Perhaps the reason why it seems they hate you is because you lack tolerance for their way of thinking. Instead of even considering what they have to say or agreeing to disagree, I'd bet anything you blame the differences on their stupidity. This whole issue comes down to tolerance--ideological tolerance. Do we have differences? Of course! In fact, I like to think that the multi-cultural/ideological differences that exist is our greatest strength and, moreover, a safeguard against tyranny. And as much as the liberals like Ted Kennedy or conservatives like Pat Robertson piss me off at times, I know that we'd be much worse off without them.
So, I guess you and your friends have to do whatever you feel is right for yourselves in the end, but I assure you, things aren't as bad as the chicken-littles on Slashdot want you to believe.
This behavior in itself, (that of making strong judgments based on little or no research), runs counter to the very tenets of the scientific analytical process which is often touted as being the reason such systems cannot exist. Indeed, this paradoxical behavior appears to me to be based on a high degree of blind faith. --Which, according to everything I have learned on the subject, is a faith very much misplaced.
The reason why scientific people respond in such a manner is because such thinking undermines the very point and thesis of science itself. For instance, if my experiment can be tangentially connected to/affected by the arbitrary pattern of lights formed in the sky above a particular location on a particular planet hurtling through space (which is what astrology, for instance, is), why even bother experimenting?
Furthermore, even if the universe were constructed in such a way, how could we even begin to understand it or prove that it does? It would be similar to trying to experiment for the existence of God. Science is limited to the physical world, and most mindful scientists are very careful not to interject scientific theories on what are really meta-physical questions.
Exactly how are radio waves in free space "substantially slower than the speed of light communications we get with cables" ???
It's not really the radio-wave part that is slower. In fact, in terms of information propogation through the medium, you're right, radio transmissions are much faster than electrical ones.
However, there are a number of practical/technical reasons which exist with wireless communications that are absent in wired ones:
-Interference- Rarely an issue with wired communications, radio transmissions are subject to interference with other signals/noise. To account for this, more layers of error correction must be added to ensure messages arrive correctly.
-Weather/Geography- Radio waves (depending upon the frequency being used) can be affected by weather and the geography of its surroundings. To account for this reduction in signal quality, more error-correction or a lower frequency with less informational capacity is needed.
-Remote Locations of Towers- Something that isn't immediately obvious is that the towers for wireless communications are typically remote. And while fiber or T1 lines can be run to many tower sites, this isn't always an option for all of them. In these cases, expensive microwave equipment is used to bounce connectivity from another site. This, as you might imagine, increases latency.
-Saturation- Radio communication is a shared physical medium, meaning that if we are on the same Wifi AP, for instance, both of our radio cards are talking to the same AP on the same frequency. 802.11b and other standards overcome this by only allowing one of us to communicate with the AP at any given time. APs allow multiple radios to communicate by coordinating whose turn it is to talk and rapidly switching back and forth. These turns do occur quickly, but if say 50 people are trying to communicate with the AP instead of 2 like our example, the time between "turns" becomes problematic. This is why shared physical mediums in wired networks are a thing of the past nowadays.
I'm not sure mandatory training of all young voters to be good Republicans or good Democrats before they are allowed to vote is how these democracy things are supposed to work. Its a personal responsibility to educate yourself, and unfortunately most Americans are pretty bad at it.
No, I'm not sure structured education will solve our problems either. However, how can you honestly hold individuals directly accountable?
The fact is that the United States is the hardest working population in the world. On average, we work longer hours with less breaks/vacations than any other country in the world. To expect someone who just got off a 10-hour shift to try to weed through the complicated mess that is modern American politics is a bit unfair. The infotainment media and deceptive political campaigns are the real ones to blame here.
Practicalities aside, however, what if they want to spend their time (what little they may have) doing something else worthwhile like spending time with their children, who are you to tell them their priorities are amiss?
I don't see a difference between guidig a plane into a building filled with civilians with dropping a bomb on top of a building filled with civilians.
I don't either. But, please, show me an example of a case were the United States intentionally attacked civilian targets in Iraq for only that purpose. Many people would like to pretend that the men in street-clothes armed with AK-47s and RPGs were, in fact, civilians, but that's bullshit and you know it.
The fact of the matter is, the modern-day U.S. military doesn't intentionally target civilians and does its absolute best to minimize civilian casualties. Can you honestly say the same for the terrorists you seem to sympathize with? You know--the same bastards who intentionally target EMS personnel (the people trying to SAVE lives) in Israel after a suicide bombing?
The compareison is very close. Don't kill civilians, don't kill innocent people.
No it's not! There's an EXTREME psychological (and ethical) difference between a soldier who accidently kills a non-combatant and terrorist who intentionally kills as many innocent "infidels" as possible.
America is not fighting for a democratic, free Iraq.
What makes you say that? A democratic, free Iraq is in the both Iraq's AND United State's best interests. It would undermine the legitimacy of every extremist Islam theocracy and finally give us an ally other than Israel in the region.
If that were the case, Iraqis could have a free election, America wouldn't invade the country and keep it under its military control for more than a year. They wouldn't instate their own puppets, they would select someone within the country, not import him from outside.
What kind of idealistic world do you live in? Were you honestly expecting a democratic Iraq to be established the day after Saddam was ousted? After World War II, Germany was in shambles and remained so for nearly a decade. In fact, with regard to recovery after a war and decades under a brutal regime, Iraq is doing amazingly well with respect to history. These things have and always will take time. Temporary solutions, as uncomfortable as they may be for all sides, will have to do in the meantime. However, I assure you, once the Iraqi people are back on their feet, the U.S. will leave--just like we said we will. I mean, why would we stay a second longer than we have to? Please don't tell me you're one of the people that buys that "No Blood for Oil" crap.
For the defense and well-being of their countrymen? Yes. For a violent, twisted intrepretation of a religion? No. Do you not see the difference?
Instead of mindlessly flaming somebody, try actually reading what they wrote next time. He didn't say that USA soldiers are terrorists.
You're right: No, he didn't. He just inferred that they were as deluded as the terrorists, which I'm arguing isn't even remotely the case.
If somebody says that Bin Laden's followers have two arms and two legs, will you flame me when I point out that USA soldiers do as well?
No, I won't, but if you follow your hypothetical statement with vile comparisons between the intentions or psychology of U.S. troops and Islamic terrorists, you're damn right I will.
Actually -what is in their "text books" is VERY important. It means the youth is being fed a steady diet of hate mongering - that everything bad in their lives is due to the great Satan. It's very much the same way that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's ills. Bin Laden blames us for everything wrong in the Middle east instead of looking to their own societies for most of their ills
Is this a post of agreement? If not, what exactly is your point? Are you saying that we, like the Jews were somehow responsible for Nazi Germany or, in our case, radical Islam?
I'm sorry, but how can you blame the U.S. or Bush, for that matter, with the propoganda they feed their populace? It's not like they'll include the U.S.'s actions in Bosnia against the Anti-muslim movement. Instead they're likely to be shown pictures of the poor, misunderstood suicide bombers in Israel.
The only way we're going to make these people happy is if we don't exist, and despite however good an alternative that may sound to some of the appeizers I see here on/, and in Europe, it's not an acceptible option for me.
Of course he makes sense, thats how he gets such a large group of followers prepared to die! I've no doubt that he actually believes what he is saying aswell. Even so that doesn't excuse his actions
Funny how the above statement applies equally well to Bush and his troops, as it does to bin Laden and his followers.
How can you even begin to honestly compare U.S. troops in Iraq working to establish a democratic free, Iraq to the honorless fanatics that flew planes filled with innocent civilians into buildings filled with yet more innocent civilians?
The comparison isn't even close, and I would enjoy watching you try to make it in front of the good men I personally know who are over in Iraq as we speak.
Though I'm starting to worry I was wrong as nobody has denounced this tape as fake.
Oh, don't worry--just give them time. The conspiracy theorists will have an undoubtably reasonable rebuttal ready soon. It's just takes a bit longer when the words are coming out of OBL's own mouth.
We have killed 15 THOUSAND innocent civilians in Iraq.
Really? I don't remember seeing any actual military estimate on how man civilian casualties there have been. Are you really willing to believe the number our enemies are touting? Can anyone really know the number of enemy combatents that were too cowardly to dress in a soldiers's uniform?
I trust him more than Bush or Kerry.
Say what you want about the man, but he is not trustful. He's an asshole, and you sir are one too if you think his word is worth anything.
...but to say that abortion is responsible just because the child, if kept, will have a hard life is just stupid. Even if they did keep the child, there are many examples of people born into harsh circumstances that became great people.
Agreed.
At six weeks you can hear a heartbeat.
What's your point with this beyond an emotional appeal? Does a heartbeat make one human?
To call it a mass of cells is a stupid argument... It will turn into a child.
To call it a full-fledged human deserving of rights is a stupid argument too. Please don't take this the wrong way, but what I think you mean to say is that it might potentially turn into a child. Nobody except the religious fringe argues that invitro-fertilization is immoral, and yet, hundreds of fertilized eggs--or potential human beings, if you will--are destroyed in the process. Why do you think this is? It's my firm belief that much of the reason why lies in the fact that there aren't sexually promiscuous "whores" to torment; only couples trying to have a child.
Look, all I am saying is people should take responsibility for their actions.
Who says I'm not? What's at issue is whether a responsibility exists, which, at the very least, we should be able to agree is a matter of opinion.
Killing a potential human being because you don't want it or you are afraid of what other people might think or because you are worried about your career cannot be justified.
But outcasting a child to a stranger's hands can? Regardless, motive for an abortion is irrelevant if the moral status of the fetus is non-existent or at least significantly less than that of a person. In this respect, I hold a gradualist point of view. A fertilized egg is not a human. Neither is a blastocyst, but we can agree that a baby on the verge of delivery undeniably is. In between these cases (zygote --> birthing child) exists a gradient of increasing moral consideration. The vast majority of abortions (88%) occur at the low end of this spectrum. Therefore, despite its emotionally-divisive nature and negative social connotations, the vast majority of abortions are not morally wrong.
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
Not much. But you have to draw the line somewhere, don't you? Arbitrary though it may be, the third trimester period represents about 1% of all abortions and also the point where significant events relative to the fetus begin to occur (i.e. "quickening", viability, and so on).
I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
The "disconnect" arises from this notion of potentiality. The logic you describe is simple but only deceptively so. How can the moral status of something depend upon what it might become?
Your Logic (correct me if I'm wrong): An embryo, regardless of the stage of development, has a good chance of becoming human. Humans have rights. Therefore, an embryo is entitled to the rights of a human.
This seems simple enough, but what happens when we apply potentiality in another context?
Example: All of us will (chance isn't even involved in this one) die and thus become dead bodies. Dead bodies have do not have rights. Therefore, all of us are not entitled to rights. (?)
Immediately, it becomes obvious why potentiality is a bad basis for conclusions on morality, and why it is never used outside the context of the abortion debate.
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Okay, again correct me if I'm wrong, but this is your potentiality-based logic: Abortions prevent potential people from coming into the world. Abortions are, in essence, murdering potential people. Murdering people is morally wrong. Therefore abortions are morally wrong too.
Fair enough.
Context-switching example: Abstinence prevents potential people from coming into the world. Abstinence is, in essence, murdering potential people. Murdering people is morally wrong. Therefore, abstinence is morally wrong too. In fact, we are morally obligated to be sexually promiscuous--lest we prevent any potential people from coming into being.
It doesn't take long to see that potentiality alone is NOT a good logical basis, which is what plagues this whole line of arguments against abortions.
Abortion is nothing more than a way to avoid responsibility.
I'll assume for the sake of the argument, that you mean voluntary abortions and not instances of rape, incest, or the mother's health. Regardless, that's a pretty convient way for you to frame the whole issue, isn't it?
Taking responsibility would be to have the baby and giving it up for adoption.
How is this--at the very least, a nine-month hiatus--really an option for someone who is heavily invested in a career or education? Because you claim it is?
Furthermore, exactly what responsibilities do I have to a mass of cells on my body? This isn't a rhetorical question. Please explain what differentiates a first-trimester blastocyst from that of a growing fingernail or mole. Is it a soul, the human DNA or some convoluted concept of potentiality which we never apply elsewhere? I am not a moral relativist. There are right and wrong actions. I've just not seen any logical arguments that first and second trimester abortions (representing 88% and 11% of all abortions, respectively) constitute the latter.
Then maybe the person will think twice before getting pregnant again.
Yeah! Those dirty whores!
Isn't that what it all really comes down to in the end? There's a need in some people for punishment and public humiliation for those practicing non-marital sex that abortion inherently denies.
If you prevent terrorists from hitting their primary target which would kill 3,000 and they hit something else that kills 300 instead isn't that worthwhile?
Your logic, that we can't protect ourselves from everything so we might as well not put forth the effort to protect ourselves from anything is the same thinking naieve computer users have twards security.
No. That's not my logic at all. My logic is that it's the government's responsibility to protect me from nuclear, biological, and chemical threats. Those are materials that are already illegal to have and should be restricted, and that's where I think their efforts will be most effective and appropriate. It's never been nor should it ever BE the government's ability to monitor the private lives and movements of innocent civilians, which is exactly what the wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act and the proposed bill in question establish.
Pointless, you would at most kill a few people before they scattered and you would be caught. From a terrorist standpoint it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.
From a terrorist standpoint, it's perfect. It can't be stopped, and it makes people too afraid to even go to work. See... here's what you're missing: with the modern day media we have in the United States, it doesn't take much to scare the bejeezus out of people. How many people did the Anthrax letters kill? How many people did the DC Sniper kill? It's not the body count that matters, it's the effect upon the population it can produce. Random, unstoppable violence is terrifying and WOULD work.
Go try to buy that fertilizer nowadays and see how well it goes.
Well I'm no chemical engineer, but I am a biologist. All fertilizers, even the ones you can buy at Lowe's or Home Depot, have nitrates. These, when mixed with an accelerate, can produce a massive explosion. Sure, the yield may not be as high as was accomplished because of a difference in concentration or type of the nitrates, but that's not really the point I was making, was it? The point is that LEGAL household chemicals can easily be used to make bombs.
Inbred idiots? Do you assume that because he was southern or because of his anti-government views? He was ex-military, I wouldn't call him an idiot.
Well, I wouldn't exactly fellate him either. I am a southerner, sir, and I'm calling him an idiot because he set off a bomb (no matter how well made YOU think it was) next to a fucking preschool because there happened to be a "government" building there. Listen, I don't trust the government. In fact, I believe it's a part of our American heritage to be distrustful of ANY strong centralized power, which is exactly why I oppose these bills.
As for the boxcutters, try bringing them abord a plane today. Even if you manage it, try hijacking one and see if you don't end up like the terrorists in pennsylvania did. People look at the world differently post 9/11.
You're entirely missing the point. I'm not saying that hijacking a plane with only a boxcutter is possible anymore. Obviously it's not. But there exists a weakness today in our infrastructure which can be exploited with very few men and supplies, and there's nothing we can do to stop it, because we'll never plug every hole. Such is the consequence of living in a free society. And we can either accept it or pretend that it doesn't exist because our biometric government implanted records and checkpoints will keep us all safe.
This is where I believe you are wrong. To train a terrorist properly, to get them to the US and in the position to attack takes time, manpower and money.
How much training and money does it take to legally buy an assault rifle and fire it in the mass of people that is a New York City sidewalk in the morning? Have you ever fired one? It's easy! Hell, nearly any fit person of legal age could wreak havoc, financing it by working a part-time job for a few months.
How much training does it take to legally and inconspicuously buy gasoline and fertilizer, mix in large barrels, that are set to go off by a primer made up of yet more household materials? Even the inbred idiots who attacked the Oklahoma City federal building were able to do something similar. In fact, the only reason they could have been tracked was because they used blasting materials as the priming charge, but this isn't even necessary if you're willing to take one for Allah's team and ignite the thing yourself.
What everybody seems to forget is that 9/11 was accomplished by men with perfectly legal papers and boxcutters... boxcutters...
Under what kind of draconian government surveillance and "protection" would we have caught THAT? I implore you, how can you adequately defend your weakest, unexpected point without going to extremes? A patient, intelligent man who's willing to die for his cause is a deadly weapon indeed.
Every system has a flaw. Every armor a chink. We can't sit back and pretend that just because our enemy is blinded by religion that they're stupid too. September 11th is proof that they can and will find our venerable points. Now we can either accept this as something which cannot be changed and resume life under the freedoms we supposedly cherish, or we can cower behind a false sense of protection that does little to address the real problem. This bill (along with the PATRIOT Act) represents the latter.
We'll never adequately secure ourselves. Our infrastructure was never designed with that in mind. It was designed for efficiency, convenience, and freedom of movement. To attempt to do so not only has diminishing returns but is also self-defeating. Defense, therefore, is not a realistic option, our only chance is to take a pro-active stance against the enemy and take the fight to them.
Slashdot Mirror
And I believe that statement is not the actual scenario. If it was, we would long since have been toasted, say about 4.5 billion years ago because this planet started out far hotter then than it is now.
It's interesting that you referenced the period 4.5 billion years ago, because it just so happens to be related to my minor critique of your assessment.
Around 4.5 billion years ago is when scientists have determined life began. This phenomenon is something you should consider in your evaluation of the conservation of energy from the sun. A negligible few organisms aside, nearly every form of the life on this planet relies either directly or indirectly on energy derived from the sun. To put this in perspective, try to imagine the sum of the energy is being converted in every one of the thousands of chemical reactions going on in every cell of every organism on the planet. Now add to that the energy stored within every complex molecule in every one of said cells. This large amount of energy being stored/converted that we've hypothesized all comes from the sun and, yet, isn't found in the form of heat (yet anyway) or reflected via light.
I would imagine that any real assessment (and, don't get me wrong, I'm not really holding your post to that standard) of the Earth's net energy values would have to account for the amount of energy absorbtion from life itself.
-Grym
Revengefully lighting a place on fire and watching its inhabitants burn isn't enforcing the law--it's setting an example for those who would consider resisting (regardless of the validity of the reason) in the future.
I would have no problem with the Waco incident if the police had killed only the men resisting, but they didn't. Their actions killed EVERYBODY. If John Ashcroft had done the same, liberals would be screaming Nazi analogies and for impeachment of Bush himself. And for the first time, they would be right in doing so.
-Grym
I realize that computers don't lie. That's not really my point. The idea is that, because "the computer doesn't lie," the only logical conclusion for most people is that if a dispute arises, YOU must be the one lying. Even if you know you aren't lying, however, you're likely to accept that perhaps you are mistaken.
-Grym
You know, I think the greater problem is the public perception of the infallibility of computers.
Example: I went to a movie rental store (Moviegallery) and gave the clerk the movie I wanted. I didn't have my card, so I just handed her my license as ID. Soon I'm informed that I have two late-fees totaling $15.00. I asked her what movies, and she tells me, indeed two movies I remember renting, followed by the statement "Computers don't lie, sir." A bit confused, I simply paid the fee and left. At home, I was looking at my receipt thinking about what she said and soon realized that the name wasn't mine on the account holder. The account holder had a different middle initial...
This incident led to an insight about how most people perceive computers. To most people computers are infallible, magical devices. Unlike us, most people don't understand and don't care to understand HOW they work. The fact that their computer can instantaneously solve 233^10, allow them to talk across the world, do their taxes for them, and so on only serves to deify computers.
So, what happens when people are placed in what you term "adversarial" situations against what they perceive to be an omniscient opponent? They concede, and if they don't, the perception by others is that they're lying, because, after all, computers don't lie.
This leads to another interesting possibility. Perhaps the push to computers in government and commerce has less to do with increased efficiency, and more to do with control. Examples:
"Sorry, sir, it's not MY fault you aren't approved for that loan, it's the computer."
"The computer says your merchandise return patterns are unusual. Therefore, you must be trying to rip us off. We won't refund your money."
"Our records show that you haven't fully paid your bill. Don't believe me? It's right there on the computer!"
"[computerized voice] We are receiving a high volume of calls right now. Please remain on hold and we will assist your call as soon as possible."
What do people do in these situations? They submit. I just can't help but wonder how profitable that fact may be.
-Grym
I'm not pretending that we're fighting the Crusades. In fact, I don't think this is at all related to Christianity. The use of the word "Crusades" was to provide you with a reference to the period in history I was describing.
I'm not supporting Bush because I'll think he'll "save" me from Islamic extremism. Again, you along with the rest of the liberals who can never be wrong, are putting words in my mouth. I feel that Islamic extremism is a problem that faces the world and that GWB has the correct plan to solve it despite its unpopular nature. I'm supporting a political opinion.
Why do you guys even participate in democracy if you consider any opinion that differs from yours based on ignorance, fear, or bigotry? If you expect everyone to feel the same way on every issue as yourself, why even bother with the formality of voting?
-Grym
I've heard this argument quite a bit. The problem I have with it is that it makes that assumption that war can be a successful method of fighting terror.
No, you're right. War is not a successful method of fighting terror. In fact, foreign wars only create terrorism as they create conditions which make individuals turn to such things as extremist religions.
Unfortunately, what you fail to see is that our strategy isn't based upon killing as many terrorists as possible. We can agree that such a plan would be stupid. And as many have criticized the Bush Administration for, we have much better targets than Iraq if that were the plan.
The real goal is establishing an economically successful, democratic muslim society. Now THAT would completely undermine the arabic cultural influences that promote extremism, which WOULD lead to less terrorism. And Iraq is the most ideal place to establish one. They have just been freed from the oppression of a brutal despot. Unlike Saudi-Arabia they have a large middle-class. And, most of all, they have abundant the technology and natural resources that will bring prosperity and trade with the rest of the world.
Regardless of what you think of the man himself, Bush undeniably has some smart people around him. The evil-genius depictions on Slashdot of Karl Rove only serve to verify this. I believe that the military involvement in Iraq was a short-term piece of a cognizant long-term strategy. Is it risky? Yes. Is it popular? Obviously not! But if it works, the United States, Iraq, and the rest of the world will stand to benefit.
-Grym
I'm not psychic; I'm basing what I said on what you posted. If you voted based on terrorism, you voted out of fear.
I'm not the author of the grandparent post, and yet, I too voted for Bush because of his stance with regard to the war on terrorism.
And, while liberals on Slashdot think they can psychoanalyze (or is "condescend" the word I'm looking for?) fifty-nine million people all in one sweeping accusation, I (and I can only speak for myself) did not vote out of fear. I voted because I feel that GWB's plan is the right one. I feel Islamic extremism is undeniably evil, and it's this generation's responsibility to put an end to it seeing as how we are in the unique position to do so.
The way I see it, we are at an important historical juncture--one in which we can finally stamp out Islamic extremism that has plagued the world since slightly before the beginning of the Crusades (when a violent interpretation of the Koran, beginning in Southern Spain took root) via the plan the grandparent briefly layed out. Even if he understood the problem, (and I have no idea if he does, because of his cryptic statements) John Kerry, in my opinion, lacks the initiate and drive to solve it. The right decision isn't always the popular one, and in these cases, following the polls and focus groups will only make the problem worse.
-Grym
It is kind of sweet being America since you can have a double standard on everything.
Actually, I think it'd be better to be a European where such subtleties aren't even expected or required. Instead, you could do whatever best serves yourself and rest assured that the Americans you love to bitch and moan about will save you when the time comes.
-Grym
Your entire post can be summed up as some sort of demand that blacks ask nicely for they're Civil Rights and if the man thinks they've suffered enough, then he might give it to them. Seriously, *I'll* be ready to "kill whitey" before I accept that as justice. These people are owed their due under the Constitution.
Really? What part of the Constitution entitles you or ANYONE to money because of heritage or ethnicity?
Just how practical do you think your reparations would be anyway? Did you know that Tiger Woods is 1/4th white, 1/4th black, and half Asian and yet he is STILL considered "black"? So is he only entitled 1/4th of your proposed reparations? Or does that mean that his white heritage cancels out his black heritage and he is not required to give or receive anything? I'm 1/64th American Indian (you know, the people who black people like to forget really got shat on by the whole deal)...what do I get?
White America's relationship with black America has been funded on credit and now the debt is due.
I don't remember taking out a loan. In fact, I don't remember ever even being rude to a black person. Despite being a southerner, none of my ancestors ever owned slaves, and in case you were wondering, it was only the vast MINORITY of southerners who did.
Justice isn't something that transcends generations. Each person only is accountable for his or her own actions. Even if my ancestors HAD owned slaves (which they didn't), I have no more obligations to black people (who you falsely assume are all purely descendents of slaves) than I do to the descendants of a hypothetical person who, for instance, was murdered by one of my ancestors.
All you've managed to tell me is that you're unwilling to guarantee your fellow citizens their rights because of their race. If that's not racist, I'm not sure I know what is.
Listen, I'm for Affirmative Action, but only when it is based upon SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, NOT RACE. Not only is SES a much more objective measure (see: Tiger Woods example) but also isn't based upon some half-assed notion of racial justice.
-Grym
I have this sneaking suspicion I'm getting trolled here, but oh well:
"Exactly. I watched the election with a circle of people who had faith in the American public going into yesterday and were shocked by the result... truly stunned and flabbergasted."
I realize that there are cultural/ideological differences that put Urban America at odds with that small area of the country between California and New York and that said differences will affect how each of us perceives events.
However, I really have to question your and your friends' logic. How can a, by all standards, very close election have you so dismayed? I could understand your feelings if the vast majority of the country was opposed to what you felt was the morally right choice, as that might be indicative of, as some others have suggested, the establishment of a dangerous ideology. But that's not what happened. Bush won by the skin of his teeth.
So, the question remains: why have you "lost your faith in the American public"? Because a certain segment doesn't agree with you? Should the people you don't agree with similarly lose faith in the American public for the same reason? What's the point in democracy if everybody is expected to agree?
"It's now clear that we hate the majority and that they hate us."
Perhaps the reason why it seems they hate you is because you lack tolerance for their way of thinking. Instead of even considering what they have to say or agreeing to disagree, I'd bet anything you blame the differences on their stupidity. This whole issue comes down to tolerance--ideological tolerance. Do we have differences? Of course! In fact, I like to think that the multi-cultural/ideological differences that exist is our greatest strength and, moreover, a safeguard against tyranny. And as much as the liberals like Ted Kennedy or conservatives like Pat Robertson piss me off at times, I know that we'd be much worse off without them.
So, I guess you and your friends have to do whatever you feel is right for yourselves in the end, but I assure you, things aren't as bad as the chicken-littles on Slashdot want you to believe.
-Grym
This behavior in itself, (that of making strong judgments based on little or no research), runs counter to the very tenets of the scientific analytical process which is often touted as being the reason such systems cannot exist. Indeed, this paradoxical behavior appears to me to be based on a high degree of blind faith. --Which, according to everything I have learned on the subject, is a faith very much misplaced.
The reason why scientific people respond in such a manner is because such thinking undermines the very point and thesis of science itself. For instance, if my experiment can be tangentially connected to/affected by the arbitrary pattern of lights formed in the sky above a particular location on a particular planet hurtling through space (which is what astrology, for instance, is), why even bother experimenting?
Furthermore, even if the universe were constructed in such a way, how could we even begin to understand it or prove that it does? It would be similar to trying to experiment for the existence of God. Science is limited to the physical world, and most mindful scientists are very careful not to interject scientific theories on what are really meta-physical questions.
-Grym
Exactly how are radio waves in free space "substantially slower than the speed of light communications we get with cables" ???
It's not really the radio-wave part that is slower. In fact, in terms of information propogation through the medium, you're right, radio transmissions are much faster than electrical ones.
However, there are a number of practical/technical reasons which exist with wireless communications that are absent in wired ones:
-Interference- Rarely an issue with wired communications, radio transmissions are subject to interference with other signals/noise. To account for this, more layers of error correction must be added to ensure messages arrive correctly.
-Weather/Geography- Radio waves (depending upon the frequency being used) can be affected by weather and the geography of its surroundings. To account for this reduction in signal quality, more error-correction or a lower frequency with less informational capacity is needed.
-Remote Locations of Towers- Something that isn't immediately obvious is that the towers for wireless communications are typically remote. And while fiber or T1 lines can be run to many tower sites, this isn't always an option for all of them. In these cases, expensive microwave equipment is used to bounce connectivity from another site. This, as you might imagine, increases latency.
-Saturation- Radio communication is a shared physical medium, meaning that if we are on the same Wifi AP, for instance, both of our radio cards are talking to the same AP on the same frequency. 802.11b and other standards overcome this by only allowing one of us to communicate with the AP at any given time. APs allow multiple radios to communicate by coordinating whose turn it is to talk and rapidly switching back and forth. These turns do occur quickly, but if say 50 people are trying to communicate with the AP instead of 2 like our example, the time between "turns" becomes problematic. This is why shared physical mediums in wired networks are a thing of the past nowadays.
-Grym
I'm not sure mandatory training of all young voters to be good Republicans or good Democrats before they are allowed to vote is how these democracy things are supposed to work. Its a personal responsibility to educate yourself, and unfortunately most Americans are pretty bad at it.
No, I'm not sure structured education will solve our problems either. However, how can you honestly hold individuals directly accountable?
The fact is that the United States is the hardest working population in the world. On average, we work longer hours with less breaks/vacations than any other country in the world. To expect someone who just got off a 10-hour shift to try to weed through the complicated mess that is modern American politics is a bit unfair. The infotainment media and deceptive political campaigns are the real ones to blame here.
Practicalities aside, however, what if they want to spend their time (what little they may have) doing something else worthwhile like spending time with their children, who are you to tell them their priorities are amiss?
-Grym
I don't see a difference between guidig a plane into a building filled with civilians with dropping a bomb on top of a building filled with civilians.
I don't either. But, please, show me an example of a case were the United States intentionally attacked civilian targets in Iraq for only that purpose. Many people would like to pretend that the men in street-clothes armed with AK-47s and RPGs were, in fact, civilians, but that's bullshit and you know it.
The fact of the matter is, the modern-day U.S. military doesn't intentionally target civilians and does its absolute best to minimize civilian casualties. Can you honestly say the same for the terrorists you seem to sympathize with? You know--the same bastards who intentionally target EMS personnel (the people trying to SAVE lives) in Israel after a suicide bombing?
The compareison is very close. Don't kill civilians, don't kill innocent people.
No it's not! There's an EXTREME psychological (and ethical) difference between a soldier who accidently kills a non-combatant and terrorist who intentionally kills as many innocent "infidels" as possible.
America is not fighting for a democratic, free Iraq.
What makes you say that? A democratic, free Iraq is in the both Iraq's AND United State's best interests. It would undermine the legitimacy of every extremist Islam theocracy and finally give us an ally other than Israel in the region.
If that were the case, Iraqis could have a free election, America wouldn't invade the country and keep it under its military control for more than a year. They wouldn't instate their own puppets, they would select someone within the country, not import him from outside.
What kind of idealistic world do you live in? Were you honestly expecting a democratic Iraq to be established the day after Saddam was ousted? After World War II, Germany was in shambles and remained so for nearly a decade. In fact, with regard to recovery after a war and decades under a brutal regime, Iraq is doing amazingly well with respect to history. These things have and always will take time. Temporary solutions, as uncomfortable as they may be for all sides, will have to do in the meantime. However, I assure you, once the Iraqi people are back on their feet, the U.S. will leave--just like we said we will. I mean, why would we stay a second longer than we have to? Please don't tell me you're one of the people that buys that "No Blood for Oil" crap.
-Grym
Are they [U.S. Soldiers] prepared to die?
For the defense and well-being of their countrymen? Yes. For a violent, twisted intrepretation of a religion? No. Do you not see the difference?
Instead of mindlessly flaming somebody, try actually reading what they wrote next time. He didn't say that USA soldiers are terrorists.
You're right: No, he didn't. He just inferred that they were as deluded as the terrorists, which I'm arguing isn't even remotely the case.
If somebody says that Bin Laden's followers have two arms and two legs, will you flame me when I point out that USA soldiers do as well?
No, I won't, but if you follow your hypothetical statement with vile comparisons between the intentions or psychology of U.S. troops and Islamic terrorists, you're damn right I will.
-Grym
Actually -what is in their "text books" is VERY important. It means the youth is being fed a steady diet of hate mongering - that everything bad in their lives is due to the great Satan. It's very much the same way that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's ills. Bin Laden blames us for everything wrong in the Middle east instead of looking to their own societies for most of their ills
Is this a post of agreement? If not, what exactly is your point? Are you saying that we, like the Jews were somehow responsible for Nazi Germany or, in our case, radical Islam?
I'm sorry, but how can you blame the U.S. or Bush, for that matter, with the propoganda they feed their populace? It's not like they'll include the U.S.'s actions in Bosnia against the Anti-muslim movement. Instead they're likely to be shown pictures of the poor, misunderstood suicide bombers in Israel.
The only way we're going to make these people happy is if we don't exist, and despite however good an alternative that may sound to some of the appeizers I see here on /, and in Europe, it's not an acceptible option for me.
-Grym
Of course he makes sense, thats how he gets such a large group of followers prepared to die! I've no doubt that he actually believes what he is saying aswell. Even so that doesn't excuse his actions Funny how the above statement applies equally well to Bush and his troops, as it does to bin Laden and his followers.
How can you even begin to honestly compare U.S. troops in Iraq working to establish a democratic free, Iraq to the honorless fanatics that flew planes filled with innocent civilians into buildings filled with yet more innocent civilians?
The comparison isn't even close, and I would enjoy watching you try to make it in front of the good men I personally know who are over in Iraq as we speak.
-Grym
Though I'm starting to worry I was wrong as nobody has denounced this tape as fake.
Oh, don't worry--just give them time. The conspiracy theorists will have an undoubtably reasonable rebuttal ready soon. It's just takes a bit longer when the words are coming out of OBL's own mouth.
Lest we forget how the CIA actually commited Nick Berg's beheading rather than, God forbid, a benevolent muslim, or how Bush, being evil incarnate that he is, actually shot down one ofthe planes himself during 9/11.
-Grym
We have killed 15 THOUSAND innocent civilians in Iraq.
Really? I don't remember seeing any actual military estimate on how man civilian casualties there have been. Are you really willing to believe the number our enemies are touting? Can anyone really know the number of enemy combatents that were too cowardly to dress in a soldiers's uniform?
I trust him more than Bush or Kerry.
Say what you want about the man, but he is not trustful. He's an asshole, and you sir are one too if you think his word is worth anything.
-Grym
Agreed.
At six weeks you can hear a heartbeat.
What's your point with this beyond an emotional appeal? Does a heartbeat make one human?
To call it a mass of cells is a stupid argument... It will turn into a child.
To call it a full-fledged human deserving of rights is a stupid argument too. Please don't take this the wrong way, but what I think you mean to say is that it might potentially turn into a child. Nobody except the religious fringe argues that invitro-fertilization is immoral, and yet, hundreds of fertilized eggs--or potential human beings, if you will--are destroyed in the process. Why do you think this is? It's my firm belief that much of the reason why lies in the fact that there aren't sexually promiscuous "whores" to torment; only couples trying to have a child.
Look, all I am saying is people should take responsibility for their actions.
Who says I'm not? What's at issue is whether a responsibility exists, which, at the very least, we should be able to agree is a matter of opinion.
Killing a potential human being because you don't want it or you are afraid of what other people might think or because you are worried about your career cannot be justified.
But outcasting a child to a stranger's hands can? Regardless, motive for an abortion is irrelevant if the moral status of the fetus is non-existent or at least significantly less than that of a person. In this respect, I hold a gradualist point of view. A fertilized egg is not a human. Neither is a blastocyst, but we can agree that a baby on the verge of delivery undeniably is. In between these cases (zygote --> birthing child) exists a gradient of increasing moral consideration. The vast majority of abortions (88%) occur at the low end of this spectrum. Therefore, despite its emotionally-divisive nature and negative social connotations, the vast majority of abortions are not morally wrong.
-Grym
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
Not much. But you have to draw the line somewhere, don't you? Arbitrary though it may be, the third trimester period represents about 1% of all abortions and also the point where significant events relative to the fetus begin to occur (i.e. "quickening", viability, and so on).
I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
The "disconnect" arises from this notion of potentiality. The logic you describe is simple but only deceptively so. How can the moral status of something depend upon what it might become?
Your Logic (correct me if I'm wrong): An embryo, regardless of the stage of development, has a good chance of becoming human. Humans have rights. Therefore, an embryo is entitled to the rights of a human.
This seems simple enough, but what happens when we apply potentiality in another context?
Example: All of us will (chance isn't even involved in this one) die and thus become dead bodies. Dead bodies have do not have rights. Therefore, all of us are not entitled to rights. (?)
Immediately, it becomes obvious why potentiality is a bad basis for conclusions on morality, and why it is never used outside the context of the abortion debate.
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Okay, again correct me if I'm wrong, but this is your potentiality-based logic: Abortions prevent potential people from coming into the world. Abortions are, in essence, murdering potential people. Murdering people is morally wrong. Therefore abortions are morally wrong too.
Fair enough.
Context-switching example: Abstinence prevents potential people from coming into the world. Abstinence is, in essence, murdering potential people. Murdering people is morally wrong. Therefore, abstinence is morally wrong too. In fact, we are morally obligated to be sexually promiscuous--lest we prevent any potential people from coming into being.
It doesn't take long to see that potentiality alone is NOT a good logical basis, which is what plagues this whole line of arguments against abortions.
-Grym
Abortion is nothing more than a way to avoid responsibility.
I'll assume for the sake of the argument, that you mean voluntary abortions and not instances of rape, incest, or the mother's health. Regardless, that's a pretty convient way for you to frame the whole issue, isn't it?
Taking responsibility would be to have the baby and giving it up for adoption.
How is this--at the very least, a nine-month hiatus--really an option for someone who is heavily invested in a career or education? Because you claim it is?
Furthermore, exactly what responsibilities do I have to a mass of cells on my body? This isn't a rhetorical question. Please explain what differentiates a first-trimester blastocyst from that of a growing fingernail or mole. Is it a soul, the human DNA or some convoluted concept of potentiality which we never apply elsewhere? I am not a moral relativist. There are right and wrong actions. I've just not seen any logical arguments that first and second trimester abortions (representing 88% and 11% of all abortions, respectively) constitute the latter.
Then maybe the person will think twice before getting pregnant again.
Yeah! Those dirty whores!
Isn't that what it all really comes down to in the end? There's a need in some people for punishment and public humiliation for those practicing non-marital sex that abortion inherently denies.
-Grym
If you prevent terrorists from hitting their primary target which would kill 3,000 and they hit something else that kills 300 instead isn't that worthwhile? Your logic, that we can't protect ourselves from everything so we might as well not put forth the effort to protect ourselves from anything is the same thinking naieve computer users have twards security.
No. That's not my logic at all. My logic is that it's the government's responsibility to protect me from nuclear, biological, and chemical threats. Those are materials that are already illegal to have and should be restricted, and that's where I think their efforts will be most effective and appropriate. It's never been nor should it ever BE the government's ability to monitor the private lives and movements of innocent civilians, which is exactly what the wiretapping provisions of the Patriot Act and the proposed bill in question establish.
Pointless, you would at most kill a few people before they scattered and you would be caught. From a terrorist standpoint it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.
From a terrorist standpoint, it's perfect. It can't be stopped, and it makes people too afraid to even go to work. See... here's what you're missing: with the modern day media we have in the United States, it doesn't take much to scare the bejeezus out of people. How many people did the Anthrax letters kill? How many people did the DC Sniper kill? It's not the body count that matters, it's the effect upon the population it can produce. Random, unstoppable violence is terrifying and WOULD work.
Go try to buy that fertilizer nowadays and see how well it goes.
Well I'm no chemical engineer, but I am a biologist. All fertilizers, even the ones you can buy at Lowe's or Home Depot, have nitrates. These, when mixed with an accelerate, can produce a massive explosion. Sure, the yield may not be as high as was accomplished because of a difference in concentration or type of the nitrates, but that's not really the point I was making, was it? The point is that LEGAL household chemicals can easily be used to make bombs.
Inbred idiots? Do you assume that because he was southern or because of his anti-government views? He was ex-military, I wouldn't call him an idiot.
Well, I wouldn't exactly fellate him either. I am a southerner, sir, and I'm calling him an idiot because he set off a bomb (no matter how well made YOU think it was) next to a fucking preschool because there happened to be a "government" building there. Listen, I don't trust the government. In fact, I believe it's a part of our American heritage to be distrustful of ANY strong centralized power, which is exactly why I oppose these bills.
As for the boxcutters, try bringing them abord a plane today. Even if you manage it, try hijacking one and see if you don't end up like the terrorists in pennsylvania did. People look at the world differently post 9/11.
You're entirely missing the point. I'm not saying that hijacking a plane with only a boxcutter is possible anymore. Obviously it's not. But there exists a weakness today in our infrastructure which can be exploited with very few men and supplies, and there's nothing we can do to stop it, because we'll never plug every hole. Such is the consequence of living in a free society. And we can either accept it or pretend that it doesn't exist because our biometric government implanted records and checkpoints will keep us all safe.
-Grym
*vulnerable
Argh! That's the last time I write a post at 5:30 in the morning!
-Grym
This is where I believe you are wrong. To train a terrorist properly, to get them to the US and in the position to attack takes time, manpower and money.
How much training and money does it take to legally buy an assault rifle and fire it in the mass of people that is a New York City sidewalk in the morning? Have you ever fired one? It's easy! Hell, nearly any fit person of legal age could wreak havoc, financing it by working a part-time job for a few months.
How much training does it take to legally and inconspicuously buy gasoline and fertilizer, mix in large barrels, that are set to go off by a primer made up of yet more household materials? Even the inbred idiots who attacked the Oklahoma City federal building were able to do something similar. In fact, the only reason they could have been tracked was because they used blasting materials as the priming charge, but this isn't even necessary if you're willing to take one for Allah's team and ignite the thing yourself.
What everybody seems to forget is that 9/11 was accomplished by men with perfectly legal papers and boxcutters... boxcutters...
Under what kind of draconian government surveillance and "protection" would we have caught THAT? I implore you, how can you adequately defend your weakest, unexpected point without going to extremes? A patient, intelligent man who's willing to die for his cause is a deadly weapon indeed.
Every system has a flaw. Every armor a chink. We can't sit back and pretend that just because our enemy is blinded by religion that they're stupid too. September 11th is proof that they can and will find our venerable points. Now we can either accept this as something which cannot be changed and resume life under the freedoms we supposedly cherish, or we can cower behind a false sense of protection that does little to address the real problem. This bill (along with the PATRIOT Act) represents the latter.
We'll never adequately secure ourselves. Our infrastructure was never designed with that in mind. It was designed for efficiency, convenience, and freedom of movement. To attempt to do so not only has diminishing returns but is also self-defeating. Defense, therefore, is not a realistic option, our only chance is to take a pro-active stance against the enemy and take the fight to them.
-Grym