Ah, I knew you had to be a fan of Plato. As much as the ancient Greek philosophers were intelligent and laid many of the foundations of western philosophy, blind adherence to their sophistry has frequently hindered progress rather than helped it.
Blind adherence to their sophistry? Wow I guess you don't know much about Socrates and Plato. Go read their works and stop taking people's word for things. In fact, study them since they can teach a tremendous amount of critical thinking.
While I agree that none of them were infallible, what we have with Socrates is an uncanny ability to see the truth and simplify logic. It was his gift. Socrates never sought fame or fortune, though he could have. In fact he despised people that charged money for teaching sophistry. Several examples are in Plato's works, one very famous debate where Socrates trounces the most famous Sophist of the time.
I disagreed with you because your logic skips all over. Look at your reply to my example of mens rea. How does your example differ from mine when proving that she had to have a frame of mind in order to be guilty? Except for the cause of her incapacity, there is no difference. You seem to believe there is a difference when none is there. Either way, mens rea does not magically mean "almost guilty" or "not quite guilty". Mens rea always determines "guilt" or the opposite "innocent".
From your perspective, absolutely everything is gray area. That perspective is not rational. There are at least as many absolutes as there are gray areas. I have studied numerous Philosophers and Philosophies, and when I notice symptom of "everything is gray" the easiest solution is to point to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Those minds have been followed up on by numerous others, go read Einstein for an excellent example. I don't recommend Einstein without studying the ancient Greeks since he's following up on logic and not inventing something new. Having no base would be like learning Calculus without understanding basic Math.
Personally, I'm a realist. That's another good search topic for Philosophy. The optimist says "the glass is half full", the pessimist says "the glass is half empty" and the realist says "the glass is twice as large as it needs to be". The basis for that way of thinking is in Socrates, but as I mentioned he has been followed up on through out history. Though nobody has been able to do as much as him.
I don't disagree with your statement "Seriously, it's time you guys brought your government back in line down there:)", in fact I quite agree. I was just pointing out some of the obvious reasons for the discrepancies. Canada AFAIK is a Socialist nation, just like the UK is a Socialist nation. It's not just "national health care", there are numerous factors involved. Canada (and the UK), at least to the US has been Socialist since the Monarchies dissolved.
Media coverage for OWS in the US was abysmal for OWS in the US. Could be that same bias that prevents US Citizens from seeing more active social uprisings in Canada. At least, as I mentioned, anything beyond the Unions striking.
Those accusations are all searchable. In fact/. had a hefty discussion due to the article which revealed the collusion between DHS, FBI, Police and Banks within the last few weeks. The slander and libel in media was apparent to anyone that watched any of the numerous specials on the government controlled media depicting OWS as a bunch of potheads that only wanted handouts and never wanted to work. Every major network had at least one "special report". Nothing is hidden if you actively search.
For the Ron Paul watch list, search for Jesse Ventura and the same key words. You don't have to trust Ventura, but the stories will lead you to released reports and documents.
The New York Post a few months back had several reports indicating that it received approval from the Government for "any" article relating to Politics. I.E. Wars in foreign lands, taxes, election coverage, etc... When you see it in one, the bias in the others should be enough logical proof that the collusion is and has been occurring. I have yet to see any media outlet act in a way, or attempt to disprove their collusion.
Google still works last I checked, and you are asking way to much information to cite in a post.
Nothing every changes for the better by taking a defeatist attitude.
^^This!^^
If enough people start to come out of their slumber, change can actually happen. We have too many complacent and ignorant Americans currently. They need to get shown what is happening and how it impacts them at every turn. If they get angry enough, change will be forced.
It's incredible that there were no marches on DC for Fraud in 2008, and an outrage that OWS was infiltrated by the Government while being slandered and libeled into nonexistence by the Government controlled media (Fox/NBC/ABC/CNN).
Both fortunately, and unfortunately, Aaron becomes a martyr. It's another straw on the camels back, though I'm sure we need many more straws.
Let us look at 9/11 since it is a valid conspiracy.
So you are a conspiracy theorist. I called it perfectly.
And exactly what does that mean, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy? Do you think a label being tossed out as an attempt at ad hominem makes you right? Sorry, go back and re-read my post.
Wrong again! Scuds were Russian technology, not Egyptian. Go do some homework, you are absolutely wrong.
I never said Scud's were not Russian technology. I said NK got theirs originally from Egypt. And they did.
"North Korea obtained its first Scud-Bs from Egypt in 1979 or 1980. These missiles were reverse engineered, and reproduced using North Korean infrastructure, including the 125 factory at Pyongyang, a research and development institute at Sanum-dong and the Musudan-ri Launch Facility.[10] The first prototypes were completed in 1984, and designated Hwasong-5. They were exact replicas of the R-17Es obtained from Egypt. The first test flights occurred in April 1984, but the first version saw only limited production, and no operational deployment, as its purpose was only to validate the production process."
You claimed originally that "The Scuds were originally from Egypt, and have been further developed mostly by NK themselves over the years.". Now you are retracting that statement and claiming you said something different. You do realize that you can read post history to see what you wrote, as well as comments correct?
Facts don't back you, sorry. Your delusion backs you. You can't discount what I said, and have not done so. Since you are either 1) Ignorant and/or delusional. or 2) Spreading propaganda. my statements end here.
After Gulf 1, Saddam had to put on a tough face and act like he was packing. We were not protecting his borders after we turned his military into dust. (Don't confuse that statement with Saddam being innocent, he deserved to have his military beat up in Gulf 1). He did provoke Gulf 1, not many would dispute that statement including myself. After Gulf 1 though, we in the US knew he had no military left. Iran on the other hand may have jumped in to Iraq. We in the US knew he had to keep a tough appearance up because of that. Did he use chemical weapons on his own people and Iranian military a decade earlier? Yeah, I know maybe better than most since I was in the military and saw some of what happened long before. Again, he was deserving for Gulf 1 and I won't dispute that. We also knew (go read military intelligence reports) that after Gulf 1 he had nothing. He never had a military Nuclear program so your one statements is an absolute lie. The US did talk a lot after we invaded them in Gulf 2 about "maybe he'd have made and used dirty bombs", but that is rhetorical fallacy plain and simple.
After Gulf 1 the US kept pushing and pushing him further into the corner, but not under Clinton. The bullying started when Bush II got in to office. Saddam still never pulled a gun on us, which is why it took 9-11 to start staging Gulf 2. Or did you forget about all the rhetoric where we claimed he was helping train the Taliban, training Al Qada, and maybe even harboring Bin Laden?
Go read the damn Wiki page for Gulf 2. Understand that in Gulf 1, we had support from the UN more than half the nations of the world. Gulf 2, we had support of very few nations and no UN support. We had vocal opposition from not just the Eastern block, but numerous countries in the West like France, Germany, Canada.
Gulf 2 has cost the lives of thousands of US and UK citizens, in addition to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Not because Saddam had WMDs, but because of an agenda which is closed to the public. Again, go read the Wiki page.
Lastly, take your own advice. If you're taking someone to task for ignoring or re-writing history... You shouldn't be committing the same error..
That then is an argument for making up anything you like from your imagination as to what is really happening. Do that and you're in the realm of conspiracy theory. It's exactly the same argument as 9/11 and Princess Diana conspiracy theorists. Push it further and you're into the illuminati and lizard men from outer space.
Wrong, and absolutely horrible logic. Let us look at 9/11 since it is a valid conspiracy. What we were told happened was a lie. There is no doubt about what we were shown being a lie (though cognitive dissonance, and all that, may keep you from looking to find out). Continuing to believe in a lie is not the action of a sane free person, but many people do so. Since this is a conspiracy you may never find out what really happened, but to believe in a lie because nobody showed you reality? Come now, you should be much better than that.
Where your argument takes a turn from bad to worse is when you bring up things that are improbable. It's like arguing against a particular Theology by bringing in a flying spaghetti monster. Sure, the rhetoric works on a few.. but to use a fantasy to dismiss a fantasy is not the action of a sane person.. it's the act of a desperate person.
One more quick point - You state "Everything else is speculation at best, conspiracy at worst.". You do realize that your statement is either an attempt to, or the result of brain washing right? A conspiracy is not a bad thing necessarily. Denying any such thing or labeling them as bad does not magically make them go away. To truly believe that there are no conspiracies in the world is delusional at best, insane at worst. To spread propaganda is worse, but generally delusional people don't realize that they help spread propaganda so I'll cut you some slack with that one.
I didn't think it worth mentioning since the use is so simple to see. We have a blame guy for any action we want to take on the Korean peninsula. We need the bad guy to keep spending money in the MIC. We need the bad guy to maintain a military presence in that region of Asia. None of that is obscure, and everything is so easy to see you simply have to open your eyes. Do you need everything spelled out for you really?
As I said, you're inventing conspiracy theories out of pure imagination
Strategy does not exist in politics? Really? Are you that blind? Okay, maybe you are just someone spreading propaganda. There is no conspiracy involved in my statement. It's called political strategy. If you don't believe it exists, then you should really visit the library sometime. There are easily thousands and thousands of books on the subject. Some good mentions would be Henry Kissinger, Winston Churchill, and of course Plato. Yes, we have known about this thing called political strategy for thousands of years (that we know of and can prove just by reading).
The Scuds were originally from Egypt, and have been further developed mostly by NK themselves over the years. With assistance at various points from former USSR countries, Iran and China. That doesn't mean they are China's puppet any more than it means that they are Iran's puppet. Countries do arms deals.
Wrong again! Scuds were Russian technology, not Egyptian. Go do some homework, you are absolutely wrong. And yes, the way technology exchange works: If I purchase Russian technology from Libya, it's _still_ Russian technology and not Libyan technology. China used to purchase much of this same Russian military technology. China's MIC and space programs still rely pretty heavily on Russia to support technologies today (though the dependance is way down).
hahaha, sorry but that made me laugh. You can't dispute anything I just said any more than you can dispute what I said before.
Sorry, but fact outweighs your imaginary conspiracies. All conspiracy theorists tell people no o
That's right, they have no say. That's why NK continues rocket and nuke tests, despite China saying no. Resulting in China voting against NK in the UN.
Do you really think that what gets said in media is what goes on behind the doors when no media is around? Come now.. who do you think makes sure NK has the materials and small technology advances to ensure that the scud technology is improved (very slightly). China of course does not give them the same tech they have for nukes, just like we don't sell our current M1 Abrams to Saudi Arabia. We sell variants that look similar enough, but in combat we win. This strategy is normal, and logical.
One which you can't quite think of just now, apparently.
I didn't think it worth mentioning since the use is so simple to see. We have a blame guy for any action we want to take on the Korean peninsula. We need the bad guy to keep spending money in the MIC. We need the bad guy to maintain a military presence in that region of Asia. None of that is obscure, and everything is so easy to see you simply have to open your eyes. Do you need everything spelled out for you really?
I am. I consider the world from NKs point of view. Few here are doing that, including you. NK are playing their own game, they are not being played.
hahaha, sorry but that made me laugh. You can't dispute anything I just said any more than you can dispute what I said before. Look man, if you want to live in a delusion that's fine. Many people fear change and cognitive dissonance so much that they do everything they can to stay remain living in a delusion. Hell, Plato's Republic spends quite a bit of time on that very thing. You can stay in the cave if you like, but honestly there is a whole world outside the cave. If you step outside, you can find some freedom.
Your first point is not valid. The person I responded to stated that the US would not bother to attack some piece of shit country unless they "used" something against the US. My correction of that statement is valid, and backed by very recent history. We have attacked people for the threat posed by their "having" weapons (even when that was not true). Similar rhetoric is coming rather consistently regarding Syria's chemical weapons (warning that we will take military action if we believe that those weapons "may" fall into the wrong hands).
NK is not a puppet? Really, that is almost laughable. Of course the North Korean people _believe_ that they are independent and take great pride in that. People in the US believe they are voting in a democratic republic too (don't confuse that with putting the US on the same plane as NK). Reality is not what delusional people are told. Reality requires looking at the world the way it is. NK is used by China to cause trouble with US and it's allies. You think that given the amount of money China pumps in to that economy they have no say-so in what they are doing? Wrong! The US uses them in a slightly different fashion. If we were really bothered by them, you don't believe we could have squashed them like a mosquito a few decades ago? Come now, use your head man!
Do you re-write history, or just ignore history much? Did you forget already that there were no WMDs in Iraq? Hell, that's an easy target to pursue if you want to look. It's in their playbook if it fits their agenda. People took great joy in severely beating the shit out of the Iraq military, which was (yes, passed tense) the same technology as NK currently has (and yes, that is current tense). Let us not try and fool people. NK is a puppet, plain and simple. A puppet used by both the East and West.
Wait, what? Who do you vote for, Puppet 1 or Puppet 2? It was so obvious in the last election it was creepy, and very few people said a damn thing. My 12 year old Nephew noticed how only certain people ever made media time. How Ron Paul was called "crazy" by media and never shown to say anything from his speeches or the debates. During live debates, the audience would applaud him madly yet the media only replayed the idiocy they wanted people to see. If Ron Paul was interviewed, it was with a question like "What do you think of being Herman Cane's running mate?" or some other bullshit.
The tell all was when the Iowa Republican Caucus stated on NPR "We don't care what the public thinks, Ron Paul will not be on the ticket in Iowa.". Think critically! Take out Ron Paul's name and insert any name you want on the ticket, and the statement will stand. "We don't care what the public thinks, will not be on the ticket.". People plain old ignored that statement, and of course it was never repeated on the controlled media or made issue of in media.
If you don't get that the Republic is already fucked, you really have not been paying any attention to what is going on around you.
Partially due to population, that should be obvious. Also, Canada is already a socialist nation where the people have a laughable amount of control. I don't remember ever seeing anything other than a small strike in Canada. OWS and Teaparty type movements simply don't exist. What on earth does the Canadian Government have to worry about with Canadian citizens, compared to the US especially. The NWO took over Canada fully about 40 years ago. Long live the Queen eh?
You do realize that your rhetoric is the easiest to spot, even by the mobs that can't critically think for themselves. You at least have to toss a strawman out there to make the ad hominem less obvious. Thanks for trolling though, good to see the noobs are out there trying.
I'm pretty sure that this one has an obvious answer. "what political party does he donate to?" It has become public information that Ron Paul supporters were put on DEA and DHS watch lists labelled as potential terrorists. I won't even get in to how the media treated anyone not in the "program", which by the way even my 12 year old nephew could notice.
I agree that we don't know what they are asking for, if that was your point. My point still stands, that we should be concerned and demanding clarity on who and why things are being asked for. As a bit of sarcasm, I don't believe that the open and honest government the establishment claimed to believe in would deny us.. Of course looking further, their actions don't match their rhetoric so we are fucked.
At least for US citizens should be the fact that the US government has increased their requests by astronomical amounts, and is the majority of the requests. 21,389 requests for private data of 33,634 This makes it obvious that these requests are not all "give me info on John Doe", but rather "Give me info on Jane and John. Now to the point I start with: According to this, the US owns at least a third of all of the requests. You _should_ be asking why and not just shrugging off this information.
No, we are not suffering from a rash of terrorism in the US (unless we go and rightfully call what the self proclaimed elites are doing terrorism). The Government is systematically shutting up anyone that observes their first amendment rights, especially those that begin to make headway with the sheople. OWS and the admitted collusion between DHS, FBI, TSA, Local Police departments, and Banks should be more than an obvious glimpse at how big the problem is. Better get to waking up the neighbors, this won't get better on it's own.
You sound like a shill with crap statements like Libre/OpenOffice may look very similar to a 10 year old version of MS Office, but office uses like their familiarity and learned shortcuts - even if there is a quicker or easier way of doing something.
The same shortcuts that exist in MS office exist in Libre office/OpenOffice, StarOffice, IBM Whateveritscalledtoday Office. Ctrl+B is bold, F7 is spell check, etc.. etc.. so your second statement is utter bullshit.
Your first statement about "it looks like old office" is similar bullshit. Why has Libre not done a "ribbon" like M$? Because users absolutely hate it, it's not efficient, it's cumbersome, and has no benefit.
Next you talk about tech support.. like most sysadmins do more than install and uninstall MS Office.. compared to a Linux admin which yum or apt installs and removes Libre office. Or maybe you refer to the lackeys that get paid to open MS tickets for users by a few rare companies.. which is a good waste of money on the companies part.
Your last statement is almost laughable. Of course there is not as big of a base for macro help in OpenSource Software macros. Don't you think that market share dictates how much of information would be available? Is that not a logical connection? If more users adopted, would the knowledge base not increase relatively?
Maybe you are not a shill and just biased to the point of blindness...
Exactly their point. It's all about protecting the FUD at this point.
Normally, MS releases reports about running MS being cheaper because of Admin costs being lower. They never mention the requirement for running Anti-virus/Anti-Malware, and in fact most of their studies never even show their own licensing fees. Usually they include the client license fees for connecting to servers, but tend to forget the much higher priced licenses on workstations.
MS office is cheaper than Libre office because of.. what exactly? The rate for re-writing macros is more expensive than a few hundred dollars (depending on your license deal) per user running MS products every year forever according to their logic. And yes, according to their logic you will be rewriting macros forever too!
Logic does not fit in their reports, which is why they continually spend more money on advertising and fake reports than they do on product development. They hide behind 3rd party companies paid to give benchmark results favoring their products.
The reason they still do as much business as they do is fitting with today's business logic. People get huge discounts and kickbacks to keep running MS products. If a shop moved to Linux, they would not receive the same kickbacks and discounts. Even if the overall cost is way more, you can't show bullshit savings to stock holders without those.
The principle of mens rea does introduce variability to guilt. It actually adds an extra dimension of guilt for someone to be guilty on, and it does have a range.
Absolutely wrong. Mens rea states that in order to be guilty of a crime, the person must have been in a specific state of mind which fits the crime. It is not adding a scale to guilt as you are implying. See below
The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.
I agree that it does not just relate to having a grasp on reality, however that is the easiest example to explain mens rea. In English and US Law, we have specific mens rea questions associated with the proceedings. Such as, "Did the person knowingly take the diamond ring from the Jeweler?". This prevented a jeweler from, of course, slipping a diamond ring into an unsuspecting noble woman's purse in order to get her into legal trouble.
The mens rea clause above does not change the fact that the noble woman took the diamond ring from the store. That act is a statement of fact: The police found her outside with the ring in her purse. What it changes, is that she can not be tried for grand larceny "if" she did not knowingly commit the crime. In which case she could not be guilty of larceny (a logical and correct conclusion), and would not be "less guilty" of Larceny.
As for "Running", "Died", "Late" and "Early", perhaps even "Born", those are all, in fact, not as clearly defined as you imply, and not necessarily binary. I've met numerous people who say that they have died, and try discussing with a physician sometime the vagaries of determining an exact time of death.
Sorry, but I can't help but wonder what makes someone believe in a such a large delusion (perhaps you don't, and are just debating for kicks). If I am running, and you are running, then we are both running. There is no mention of "how fast" or "how slow" one is running needed in that statement of fact. The fact that we are both running is not changed by either of those things.
If a person is clinically dead, they have met the criteria for being dead. If the person was lucky enough to be revived, the fact that they were revived does not change the fact that they were clinically dead. There is no scaling to say "well, he was mostly dead". The person was either dead, or not dead.
All of these things are called facts, and facts are not variable. As with above, the fact that I was 10 minutes late or 60 minutes late does not change the fact that I was late. Your punishment for being late will of course very on "why" you were late, and "how late you were", but the state of being late is never magically changed based on those criteria.
The "not possible" has me baffled. Are you suggesting that it's not possible to steal food from a starving child, or that it's not possible to steal food from a supermarket, or both?
The "not possible" relates to your statement that one or both of those situations changes the state of guilt. The state of guilt can not be changed, any more than the state of lateness can changed, or the state of being dead can be changed. The state of guilt can not be "more" or "less", the state is either "yes" or "no". That state never changes. The only thing that _can_ change is the circumstances that lead us to be in the state.
You can be either late or not late, but you can also indisputably be late to varying degrees and even by precise, measured amounts. The "fact" that you stole as a simple binary is, as you say, not scaling, but it's also not very useful in terms of information packing. Most people roll in more information and include it in the concept known as "guilt".
You start correctly, then get illogical. Are you late? The answer is "yes" or "no", not "well I'm fuzzy". I never asked "how late were you?", I asked "Are you late?". Adding in "well, it was only by x minutes" never changes the state of lateness, it can only be used to mitigate punishment.
Guilt is not a concept, guilt is a state of being. Just as "running" or "dead" is a state of being. Claiming it's a concept is what is wrong with our justice system currently. Believing such a delusion is rather frightening. As mentioned above, perhaps you really don't believe it and are just debating for fun.
Either way, I can not try and clarify any more on this. If you truly believe guilt is a concept or that I'm musing spend a lot of time studying Socrates. The dialogues of Plato and The Republic are both great studies for critical thinking and rational thought.
I agree, but will point out the logical issue that was supposed to be addressed by the system of Patents and Copyrights which were put in the books as Law.
Without a basic understanding of a Steam Engine, a new form of Engine would not have been possible (at least within the timelines we have them invented). Patenting the Steam Engine is allowed, for only 7 years time. And in fact, it needed to be that exact apparatus to be patentable. Me watching the steam engine, came to a logical next step. Why not burn something else, like Gasoline or Kerosine and make an engine from that?
So the nature of discovery, even according to great minds like Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison (No intent to appeal to authority, but rather quoting people that have stated similar thoughts) is to piggy back on previous ideas to evolve better and better solutions.
So in practice, the "Steam Engine" was not patentable as a generic concept. The "Hoover Model A. Steam Engine" was patentable. The concept of a steam engine was not copyrightable. However your wording to describe the engine would be copyrightable.
Do you see the difference? The original intent was to protect people from plagiarism. Not so that someone "owned" ideas. In fact the wording of the laws and thoughts on the laws explicitly state that the laws can not be used to "own" ideas. The British allowed "ownership" of thoughts and ideas, and this was appalling to those that worked on the US Law.
You did a great job elaborating on the point I made where password + other is "good" security. Either on their own has logical flaws, and those flaws have been known for at least 15 years. The issue in my opinion comes to control. If I'm using bad security in "password" auth at least I'm in control of it. If I'm using bad security in a smart card, I'm at the mercy of the vendor producing the smart card. It's the "control" issue that ends all solutions back at "user id" + password.
I accept the apology, but will point out that you should check user post history before accusing them of being shills. This is of course in addition to reading what was written, and not what you wish to read:)
With Windows update, most users received a pop-up on Win 7 also. It may not be shipped, but Windows update will give you an alert if you don't have it and have Win-Update enabled. And yes most computers that ship with Windows have Windows update enabled.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I knew you had to be a fan of Plato. As much as the ancient Greek philosophers were intelligent and laid many of the foundations of western philosophy, blind adherence to their sophistry has frequently hindered progress rather than helped it.
Blind adherence to their sophistry? Wow I guess you don't know much about Socrates and Plato. Go read their works and stop taking people's word for things. In fact, study them since they can teach a tremendous amount of critical thinking.
While I agree that none of them were infallible, what we have with Socrates is an uncanny ability to see the truth and simplify logic. It was his gift. Socrates never sought fame or fortune, though he could have. In fact he despised people that charged money for teaching sophistry. Several examples are in Plato's works, one very famous debate where Socrates trounces the most famous Sophist of the time.
I disagreed with you because your logic skips all over. Look at your reply to my example of mens rea. How does your example differ from mine when proving that she had to have a frame of mind in order to be guilty? Except for the cause of her incapacity, there is no difference. You seem to believe there is a difference when none is there. Either way, mens rea does not magically mean "almost guilty" or "not quite guilty". Mens rea always determines "guilt" or the opposite "innocent".
From your perspective, absolutely everything is gray area. That perspective is not rational. There are at least as many absolutes as there are gray areas. I have studied numerous Philosophers and Philosophies, and when I notice symptom of "everything is gray" the easiest solution is to point to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Those minds have been followed up on by numerous others, go read Einstein for an excellent example. I don't recommend Einstein without studying the ancient Greeks since he's following up on logic and not inventing something new. Having no base would be like learning Calculus without understanding basic Math.
Personally, I'm a realist. That's another good search topic for Philosophy. The optimist says "the glass is half full", the pessimist says "the glass is half empty" and the realist says "the glass is twice as large as it needs to be". The basis for that way of thinking is in Socrates, but as I mentioned he has been followed up on through out history. Though nobody has been able to do as much as him.
I don't disagree with your statement "Seriously, it's time you guys brought your government back in line down there :)", in fact I quite agree. I was just pointing out some of the obvious reasons for the discrepancies. Canada AFAIK is a Socialist nation, just like the UK is a Socialist nation. It's not just "national health care", there are numerous factors involved. Canada (and the UK), at least to the US has been Socialist since the Monarchies dissolved.
Media coverage for OWS in the US was abysmal for OWS in the US. Could be that same bias that prevents US Citizens from seeing more active social uprisings in Canada. At least, as I mentioned, anything beyond the Unions striking.
Those accusations are all searchable. In fact /. had a hefty discussion due to the article which revealed the collusion between DHS, FBI, Police and Banks within the last few weeks. The slander and libel in media was apparent to anyone that watched any of the numerous specials on the government controlled media depicting OWS as a bunch of potheads that only wanted handouts and never wanted to work. Every major network had at least one "special report". Nothing is hidden if you actively search.
For the Ron Paul watch list, search for Jesse Ventura and the same key words. You don't have to trust Ventura, but the stories will lead you to released reports and documents.
The New York Post a few months back had several reports indicating that it received approval from the Government for "any" article relating to Politics. I.E. Wars in foreign lands, taxes, election coverage, etc... When you see it in one, the bias in the others should be enough logical proof that the collusion is and has been occurring. I have yet to see any media outlet act in a way, or attempt to disprove their collusion.
Google still works last I checked, and you are asking way to much information to cite in a post.
Intoxication would be one of numerous possible causes of ignorance. I was using a general term (ignorant) rather intentionally :)
Nothing every changes for the better by taking a defeatist attitude.
^^This!^^
If enough people start to come out of their slumber, change can actually happen. We have too many complacent and ignorant Americans currently. They need to get shown what is happening and how it impacts them at every turn. If they get angry enough, change will be forced.
It's incredible that there were no marches on DC for Fraud in 2008, and an outrage that OWS was infiltrated by the Government while being slandered and libeled into nonexistence by the Government controlled media (Fox/NBC/ABC/CNN).
Both fortunately, and unfortunately, Aaron becomes a martyr. It's another straw on the camels back, though I'm sure we need many more straws.
Let us look at 9/11 since it is a valid conspiracy.
So you are a conspiracy theorist. I called it perfectly.
And exactly what does that mean, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy? Do you think a label being tossed out as an attempt at ad hominem makes you right? Sorry, go back and re-read my post.
Wrong again! Scuds were Russian technology, not Egyptian. Go do some homework, you are absolutely wrong.
I never said Scud's were not Russian technology. I said NK got theirs originally from Egypt. And they did.
"North Korea obtained its first Scud-Bs from Egypt in 1979 or 1980. These missiles were reverse engineered, and reproduced using North Korean infrastructure, including the 125 factory at Pyongyang, a research and development institute at Sanum-dong and the Musudan-ri Launch Facility.[10] The first prototypes were completed in 1984, and designated Hwasong-5. They were exact replicas of the R-17Es obtained from Egypt. The first test flights occurred in April 1984, but the first version saw only limited production, and no operational deployment, as its purpose was only to validate the production process."
You claimed originally that "The Scuds were originally from Egypt, and have been further developed mostly by NK themselves over the years.". Now you are retracting that statement and claiming you said something different. You do realize that you can read post history to see what you wrote, as well as comments correct?
Facts don't back you, sorry. Your delusion backs you. You can't discount what I said, and have not done so. Since you are either 1) Ignorant and/or delusional. or 2) Spreading propaganda. my statements end here.
After Gulf 1, Saddam had to put on a tough face and act like he was packing. We were not protecting his borders after we turned his military into dust. (Don't confuse that statement with Saddam being innocent, he deserved to have his military beat up in Gulf 1). He did provoke Gulf 1, not many would dispute that statement including myself. After Gulf 1 though, we in the US knew he had no military left. Iran on the other hand may have jumped in to Iraq. We in the US knew he had to keep a tough appearance up because of that. Did he use chemical weapons on his own people and Iranian military a decade earlier? Yeah, I know maybe better than most since I was in the military and saw some of what happened long before. Again, he was deserving for Gulf 1 and I won't dispute that. We also knew (go read military intelligence reports) that after Gulf 1 he had nothing. He never had a military Nuclear program so your one statements is an absolute lie. The US did talk a lot after we invaded them in Gulf 2 about "maybe he'd have made and used dirty bombs", but that is rhetorical fallacy plain and simple.
After Gulf 1 the US kept pushing and pushing him further into the corner, but not under Clinton. The bullying started when Bush II got in to office. Saddam still never pulled a gun on us, which is why it took 9-11 to start staging Gulf 2. Or did you forget about all the rhetoric where we claimed he was helping train the Taliban, training Al Qada, and maybe even harboring Bin Laden?
Go read the damn Wiki page for Gulf 2. Understand that in Gulf 1, we had support from the UN more than half the nations of the world. Gulf 2, we had support of very few nations and no UN support. We had vocal opposition from not just the Eastern block, but numerous countries in the West like France, Germany, Canada.
Gulf 2 has cost the lives of thousands of US and UK citizens, in addition to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Not because Saddam had WMDs, but because of an agenda which is closed to the public. Again, go read the Wiki page.
Lastly, take your own advice. If you're taking someone to task for ignoring or re-writing history... You shouldn't be committing the same error..
That then is an argument for making up anything you like from your imagination as to what is really happening. Do that and you're in the realm of conspiracy theory. It's exactly the same argument as 9/11 and Princess Diana conspiracy theorists. Push it further and you're into the illuminati and lizard men from outer space.
Wrong, and absolutely horrible logic. Let us look at 9/11 since it is a valid conspiracy. What we were told happened was a lie. There is no doubt about what we were shown being a lie (though cognitive dissonance, and all that, may keep you from looking to find out). Continuing to believe in a lie is not the action of a sane free person, but many people do so. Since this is a conspiracy you may never find out what really happened, but to believe in a lie because nobody showed you reality? Come now, you should be much better than that.
Where your argument takes a turn from bad to worse is when you bring up things that are improbable. It's like arguing against a particular Theology by bringing in a flying spaghetti monster. Sure, the rhetoric works on a few.. but to use a fantasy to dismiss a fantasy is not the action of a sane person.. it's the act of a desperate person.
One more quick point - You state "Everything else is speculation at best, conspiracy at worst.". You do realize that your statement is either an attempt to, or the result of brain washing right? A conspiracy is not a bad thing necessarily. Denying any such thing or labeling them as bad does not magically make them go away. To truly believe that there are no conspiracies in the world is delusional at best, insane at worst. To spread propaganda is worse, but generally delusional people don't realize that they help spread propaganda so I'll cut you some slack with that one.
I didn't think it worth mentioning since the use is so simple to see. We have a blame guy for any action we want to take on the Korean peninsula. We need the bad guy to keep spending money in the MIC. We need the bad guy to maintain a military presence in that region of Asia. None of that is obscure, and everything is so easy to see you simply have to open your eyes. Do you need everything spelled out for you really?
As I said, you're inventing conspiracy theories out of pure imagination
Strategy does not exist in politics? Really? Are you that blind? Okay, maybe you are just someone spreading propaganda. There is no conspiracy involved in my statement. It's called political strategy. If you don't believe it exists, then you should really visit the library sometime. There are easily thousands and thousands of books on the subject. Some good mentions would be Henry Kissinger, Winston Churchill, and of course Plato. Yes, we have known about this thing called political strategy for thousands of years (that we know of and can prove just by reading).
The Scuds were originally from Egypt, and have been further developed mostly by NK themselves over the years. With assistance at various points from former USSR countries, Iran and China. That doesn't mean they are China's puppet any more than it means that they are Iran's puppet. Countries do arms deals.
Wrong again! Scuds were Russian technology, not Egyptian. Go do some homework, you are absolutely wrong. And yes, the way technology exchange works: If I purchase Russian technology from Libya, it's _still_ Russian technology and not Libyan technology. China used to purchase much of this same Russian military technology. China's MIC and space programs still rely pretty heavily on Russia to support technologies today (though the dependance is way down).
hahaha, sorry but that made me laugh. You can't dispute anything I just said any more than you can dispute what I said before.
Sorry, but fact outweighs your imaginary conspiracies. All conspiracy theorists tell people no o
Different AC (sorry, I have mod points to spend to having to post as AC in this thread.
Search for the lawsuits AMD filed and won against Intel. It's a good starting point.
That's right, they have no say. That's why NK continues rocket and nuke tests, despite China saying no. Resulting in China voting against NK in the UN.
Do you really think that what gets said in media is what goes on behind the doors when no media is around? Come now.. who do you think makes sure NK has the materials and small technology advances to ensure that the scud technology is improved (very slightly). China of course does not give them the same tech they have for nukes, just like we don't sell our current M1 Abrams to Saudi Arabia. We sell variants that look similar enough, but in combat we win. This strategy is normal, and logical.
One which you can't quite think of just now, apparently.
I didn't think it worth mentioning since the use is so simple to see. We have a blame guy for any action we want to take on the Korean peninsula. We need the bad guy to keep spending money in the MIC. We need the bad guy to maintain a military presence in that region of Asia. None of that is obscure, and everything is so easy to see you simply have to open your eyes. Do you need everything spelled out for you really?
I am. I consider the world from NKs point of view. Few here are doing that, including you. NK are playing their own game, they are not being played.
hahaha, sorry but that made me laugh. You can't dispute anything I just said any more than you can dispute what I said before. Look man, if you want to live in a delusion that's fine. Many people fear change and cognitive dissonance so much that they do everything they can to stay remain living in a delusion. Hell, Plato's Republic spends quite a bit of time on that very thing. You can stay in the cave if you like, but honestly there is a whole world outside the cave. If you step outside, you can find some freedom.
Your first point is not valid. The person I responded to stated that the US would not bother to attack some piece of shit country unless they "used" something against the US. My correction of that statement is valid, and backed by very recent history. We have attacked people for the threat posed by their "having" weapons (even when that was not true). Similar rhetoric is coming rather consistently regarding Syria's chemical weapons (warning that we will take military action if we believe that those weapons "may" fall into the wrong hands).
NK is not a puppet? Really, that is almost laughable. Of course the North Korean people _believe_ that they are independent and take great pride in that. People in the US believe they are voting in a democratic republic too (don't confuse that with putting the US on the same plane as NK). Reality is not what delusional people are told. Reality requires looking at the world the way it is. NK is used by China to cause trouble with US and it's allies. You think that given the amount of money China pumps in to that economy they have no say-so in what they are doing? Wrong! The US uses them in a slightly different fashion. If we were really bothered by them, you don't believe we could have squashed them like a mosquito a few decades ago? Come now, use your head man!
Do you re-write history, or just ignore history much? Did you forget already that there were no WMDs in Iraq? Hell, that's an easy target to pursue if you want to look. It's in their playbook if it fits their agenda. People took great joy in severely beating the shit out of the Iraq military, which was (yes, passed tense) the same technology as NK currently has (and yes, that is current tense). Let us not try and fool people. NK is a puppet, plain and simple. A puppet used by both the East and West.
Wait, what? Who do you vote for, Puppet 1 or Puppet 2? It was so obvious in the last election it was creepy, and very few people said a damn thing. My 12 year old Nephew noticed how only certain people ever made media time. How Ron Paul was called "crazy" by media and never shown to say anything from his speeches or the debates. During live debates, the audience would applaud him madly yet the media only replayed the idiocy they wanted people to see. If Ron Paul was interviewed, it was with a question like "What do you think of being Herman Cane's running mate?" or some other bullshit.
The tell all was when the Iowa Republican Caucus stated on NPR "We don't care what the public thinks, Ron Paul will not be on the ticket in Iowa.". Think critically! Take out Ron Paul's name and insert any name you want on the ticket, and the statement will stand. "We don't care what the public thinks, will not be on the ticket.". People plain old ignored that statement, and of course it was never repeated on the controlled media or made issue of in media.
If you don't get that the Republic is already fucked, you really have not been paying any attention to what is going on around you.
Partially due to population, that should be obvious. Also, Canada is already a socialist nation where the people have a laughable amount of control. I don't remember ever seeing anything other than a small strike in Canada. OWS and Teaparty type movements simply don't exist. What on earth does the Canadian Government have to worry about with Canadian citizens, compared to the US especially. The NWO took over Canada fully about 40 years ago. Long live the Queen eh?
You do realize that your rhetoric is the easiest to spot, even by the mobs that can't critically think for themselves. You at least have to toss a strawman out there to make the ad hominem less obvious. Thanks for trolling though, good to see the noobs are out there trying.
I'm pretty sure that this one has an obvious answer. "what political party does he donate to?" It has become public information that Ron Paul supporters were put on DEA and DHS watch lists labelled as potential terrorists. I won't even get in to how the media treated anyone not in the "program", which by the way even my 12 year old nephew could notice.
I agree that we don't know what they are asking for, if that was your point. My point still stands, that we should be concerned and demanding clarity on who and why things are being asked for. As a bit of sarcasm, I don't believe that the open and honest government the establishment claimed to believe in would deny us.. Of course looking further, their actions don't match their rhetoric so we are fucked.
At least for US citizens should be the fact that the US government has increased their requests by astronomical amounts, and is the majority of the requests. 21,389 requests for private data of 33,634 This makes it obvious that these requests are not all "give me info on John Doe", but rather "Give me info on Jane and John. Now to the point I start with: According to this, the US owns at least a third of all of the requests. You _should_ be asking why and not just shrugging off this information.
No, we are not suffering from a rash of terrorism in the US (unless we go and rightfully call what the self proclaimed elites are doing terrorism). The Government is systematically shutting up anyone that observes their first amendment rights, especially those that begin to make headway with the sheople. OWS and the admitted collusion between DHS, FBI, TSA, Local Police departments, and Banks should be more than an obvious glimpse at how big the problem is. Better get to waking up the neighbors, this won't get better on it's own.
You sound like a shill with crap statements like Libre/OpenOffice may look very similar to a 10 year old version of MS Office, but office uses like their familiarity and learned shortcuts - even if there is a quicker or easier way of doing something.
The same shortcuts that exist in MS office exist in Libre office/OpenOffice, StarOffice, IBM Whateveritscalledtoday Office. Ctrl+B is bold, F7 is spell check, etc.. etc.. so your second statement is utter bullshit.
Your first statement about "it looks like old office" is similar bullshit. Why has Libre not done a "ribbon" like M$? Because users absolutely hate it, it's not efficient, it's cumbersome, and has no benefit.
Next you talk about tech support.. like most sysadmins do more than install and uninstall MS Office.. compared to a Linux admin which yum or apt installs and removes Libre office. Or maybe you refer to the lackeys that get paid to open MS tickets for users by a few rare companies.. which is a good waste of money on the companies part.
Your last statement is almost laughable. Of course there is not as big of a base for macro help in OpenSource Software macros. Don't you think that market share dictates how much of information would be available? Is that not a logical connection? If more users adopted, would the knowledge base not increase relatively?
Maybe you are not a shill and just biased to the point of blindness...
Exactly their point. It's all about protecting the FUD at this point.
Normally, MS releases reports about running MS being cheaper because of Admin costs being lower. They never mention the requirement for running Anti-virus/Anti-Malware, and in fact most of their studies never even show their own licensing fees. Usually they include the client license fees for connecting to servers, but tend to forget the much higher priced licenses on workstations.
MS office is cheaper than Libre office because of.. what exactly? The rate for re-writing macros is more expensive than a few hundred dollars (depending on your license deal) per user running MS products every year forever according to their logic. And yes, according to their logic you will be rewriting macros forever too!
Logic does not fit in their reports, which is why they continually spend more money on advertising and fake reports than they do on product development. They hide behind 3rd party companies paid to give benchmark results favoring their products.
The reason they still do as much business as they do is fitting with today's business logic. People get huge discounts and kickbacks to keep running MS products. If a shop moved to Linux, they would not receive the same kickbacks and discounts. Even if the overall cost is way more, you can't show bullshit savings to stock holders without those.
The principle of mens rea does introduce variability to guilt. It actually adds an extra dimension of guilt for someone to be guilty on, and it does have a range.
Absolutely wrong. Mens rea states that in order to be guilty of a crime, the person must have been in a specific state of mind which fits the crime. It is not adding a scale to guilt as you are implying. See below
The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.
I agree that it does not just relate to having a grasp on reality, however that is the easiest example to explain mens rea. In English and US Law, we have specific mens rea questions associated with the proceedings. Such as, "Did the person knowingly take the diamond ring from the Jeweler?". This prevented a jeweler from, of course, slipping a diamond ring into an unsuspecting noble woman's purse in order to get her into legal trouble.
The mens rea clause above does not change the fact that the noble woman took the diamond ring from the store. That act is a statement of fact: The police found her outside with the ring in her purse. What it changes, is that she can not be tried for grand larceny "if" she did not knowingly commit the crime. In which case she could not be guilty of larceny (a logical and correct conclusion), and would not be "less guilty" of Larceny.
As for "Running", "Died", "Late" and "Early", perhaps even "Born", those are all, in fact, not as clearly defined as you imply, and not necessarily binary. I've met numerous people who say that they have died, and try discussing with a physician sometime the vagaries of determining an exact time of death.
Sorry, but I can't help but wonder what makes someone believe in a such a large delusion (perhaps you don't, and are just debating for kicks). If I am running, and you are running, then we are both running. There is no mention of "how fast" or "how slow" one is running needed in that statement of fact. The fact that we are both running is not changed by either of those things.
If a person is clinically dead, they have met the criteria for being dead. If the person was lucky enough to be revived, the fact that they were revived does not change the fact that they were clinically dead. There is no scaling to say "well, he was mostly dead". The person was either dead, or not dead.
All of these things are called facts, and facts are not variable. As with above, the fact that I was 10 minutes late or 60 minutes late does not change the fact that I was late. Your punishment for being late will of course very on "why" you were late, and "how late you were", but the state of being late is never magically changed based on those criteria.
The "not possible" has me baffled. Are you suggesting that it's not possible to steal food from a starving child, or that it's not possible to steal food from a supermarket, or both?
The "not possible" relates to your statement that one or both of those situations changes the state of guilt. The state of guilt can not be changed, any more than the state of lateness can changed, or the state of being dead can be changed. The state of guilt can not be "more" or "less", the state is either "yes" or "no". That state never changes. The only thing that _can_ change is the circumstances that lead us to be in the state.
You can be either late or not late, but you can also indisputably be late to varying degrees and even by precise, measured amounts. The "fact" that you stole as a simple binary is, as you say, not scaling, but it's also not very useful in terms of information packing. Most people roll in more information and include it in the concept known as "guilt".
You start correctly, then get illogical. Are you late? The answer is "yes" or "no", not "well I'm fuzzy". I never asked "how late were you?", I asked "Are you late?". Adding in "well, it was only by x minutes" never changes the state of lateness, it can only be used to mitigate punishment.
Guilt is not a concept, guilt is a state of being. Just as "running" or "dead" is a state of being. Claiming it's a concept is what is wrong with our justice system currently. Believing such a delusion is rather frightening. As mentioned above, perhaps you really don't believe it and are just debating for fun.
Either way, I can not try and clarify any more on this. If you truly believe guilt is a concept or that I'm musing spend a lot of time studying Socrates. The dialogues of Plato and The Republic are both great studies for critical thinking and rational thought.
I agree, but will point out the logical issue that was supposed to be addressed by the system of Patents and Copyrights which were put in the books as Law.
Without a basic understanding of a Steam Engine, a new form of Engine would not have been possible (at least within the timelines we have them invented). Patenting the Steam Engine is allowed, for only 7 years time. And in fact, it needed to be that exact apparatus to be patentable. Me watching the steam engine, came to a logical next step. Why not burn something else, like Gasoline or Kerosine and make an engine from that?
So the nature of discovery, even according to great minds like Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison (No intent to appeal to authority, but rather quoting people that have stated similar thoughts) is to piggy back on previous ideas to evolve better and better solutions.
So in practice, the "Steam Engine" was not patentable as a generic concept. The "Hoover Model A. Steam Engine" was patentable. The concept of a steam engine was not copyrightable. However your wording to describe the engine would be copyrightable.
Do you see the difference? The original intent was to protect people from plagiarism. Not so that someone "owned" ideas. In fact the wording of the laws and thoughts on the laws explicitly state that the laws can not be used to "own" ideas. The British allowed "ownership" of thoughts and ideas, and this was appalling to those that worked on the US Law.
You did a great job elaborating on the point I made where password + other is "good" security. Either on their own has logical flaws, and those flaws have been known for at least 15 years. The issue in my opinion comes to control. If I'm using bad security in "password" auth at least I'm in control of it. If I'm using bad security in a smart card, I'm at the mercy of the vendor producing the smart card. It's the "control" issue that ends all solutions back at "user id" + password.
I accept the apology, but will point out that you should check user post history before accusing them of being shills. This is of course in addition to reading what was written, and not what you wish to read :)
With Windows update, most users received a pop-up on Win 7 also. It may not be shipped, but Windows update will give you an alert if you don't have it and have Win-Update enabled. And yes most computers that ship with Windows have Windows update enabled.