Who is about to get Nukes? Are you talking about Iran who is about ten years away or Israel, pakistan, india, north korea which already has nukes. Of those Israel has been in a continual state of war for more then two decades, pakistan is being run a military dictator who has cancelled elections, north korea which is being run by a madman, and india which has a huge population to feed and a bone to pick with Pakistan.
Don't worry though. Whenever I despair about nukes I do the following exersize which helps me calm down.
1) Take a sheet of paper. 2) Divide it vertically. 3) On the left side write down all countries which have nukes. 4) On the right side write down all the countries that have used nukes in war.
That should make you feel better.
BTW: Personally I have no problem with anybody having nukes. If Iran wants them they should have them. They are surrounded by enemies some of which have nukes. If anything MAD will keep the peace between israel and iran (two religous states)
"part from everyone just getting along, the only way for there to be peace is for the "alpha wolf" to be (or appear to be) so much stronger that no one dares challenge him. "
YEs, just like Saddam, pol pot, idi amin, stalin etc.
"Only supernatural intervention can turn around the human condition."
That certainly seems like a defeatist attitude to me. I for one think it's possible for humans to reason with each other and I think God (I am pretending he does exist and is the god of the christians) did too. He gave down the ten commandments. Obey them and there will be peace. The problem is that we don't want to obey, we just want to feel good.
Sure. I mean you want to be as efficient as possible when you want to subjugate people to your will and take over their natural resources and other wealth.
There are a lot of people who are unfortable with the idea of running an ethical business./. is full of liberterian types who believe that morals and ethics have no place in business at all. They object to having a mission statement that hints at any kind of an ethical guidance at all.
You have to think of their world of view context as well. I'll paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld.
"If you came from space and you saw a man walking a dog what would you think? The dog is walking ahead of the man, the dog shits, the man picks up the shit and carries it. Who would you think was in charge?"
Why would that matter? You think the RIAA would sue the politicians? You think they would sue any rich person? These laws are designed to put ordinary people in their place, they are not designed to effect the rich and the powerful.
I did a fresh install of XP, turned off all un needed services and my memory footprint was around 264K. I didn't have skype running so it looks like it will be really difficult to run windows and skype without half a gig or so.
Of course drugs were illegal for a long time before reagan. Same with jaywalking. I remember one time in the early eighties I was walking down the street with a bong in my hand (ah the folly of youth) and a cop stopped me. He confiscated my bong and took my dope (not much enough to fill a couple of pipes). Dope was illegal but nobody did much about it because the cops knew there were bigger problems in the world to deal with.
Reagan instiguted the zero tolerance policy. That was all him. He drove that. It's all his responsibility. It's too early to try and revise that bit of history. Some of us were around and we still have clear memories.
So yes drugs were illegal back then. Reagan started the war on drugs though. There is a profound difference.
Who knows maybe Dubya will decree a zero tolerance policy for jaywalking and you will end up in jail for a decade because you didn't look both ways.
Anyway, I am trying to talk to somebody who reveres reagan. Why even bother really. Your ability to make sound judgements and think rationally has already been disproved.
Interest rates are set and controlled by the central bank. While there may be a little influence from the president he doesn't have much to do with them.
I listed my gripes. Whatever he did for business (presuming you are right and that he is solely responsible) doesn't make up for the fact that he was funding death squads in central america or locking people up for smoking a joint. In fact the war on drugs may have been the single worst policy ever taken by any president till dubya declared a war on a word.
business cycles come and go. War on drugs is still around, the people who got purged during his progrom are still dead.
I remember Reagan. He spent the economy into insane debt that took till clinton to come out of. He instituted zero tolerance of drug laws so that having a seed meant you ended up in jail. What's worse I remember how people were having their houses confiscated because their renters smoked dope. Reagan started the war on drugs. I also remember him funding death squads in central america with arms sales to iran. I remember him falling asleep in front of the pope. I remember him confusing real life with movies. I remember nancy whispering his lines to him. I remember Lee Atwater who I believed was an actual demon roaming the earth eating souls as he went along.
Yes I remember Reagan. Bush reminds me a lot of him. I am sure he would take that as a compliment.
While I applaud Mr. Bloombergs speech to me he represents a rather puzzling person. Why is this guy a repulican. Not just him but also people like arnold schwarzenegger, Andrew Sullivan etc. I mean if you are not against gay marriage, if you don't think pre-emptive war is a good idea, if you are pro life then why are you are republican. Before anybody says anything about fiscal responsibility or smaller government I will ask you to go look up the track record of republican presidents regarding those items.
I am especially puzzled about Andrew Sullivan. This guy is gay, the republican party tried to pass a platform saying that homosexuality was a disease!. They are trying their best to deny him the right to marry, to serve his govt, live wherever he chooses etc and yet he is still a republican. Can anything be more important to you then having the same rights as everybody else in the country?
The problem is that by the time the customer demand builds up to some critical level Lenovo might not be able to capitalize on it. Why? Mainly because MS has a history of stabbing it's partners in the back and causing them permanent harm if not corporate death. There is no reason to think that MS will not do the same to Lenovo.
I said you were a republitard. That's different from a conservative, a republican, a democrat or a liberal. Republitard is a person who is unable to think clearly, unable to grasp complex subjects, unable to think about things in a non black and white manner.
We have already established that you don't like any governments you are an anarchist.
For example you think Kerry would have made a poor president. You have no reason to believe that. You just believe it because either somebody told you to or you think you should. You think Bush is a poor president. So to you they are the same. The fact that you think Kerry would probably be a bad president and that Bush is actually a poor president carries the same amount of weight. Notice that you are unable to put any gradiations on the poorness either. To you the speculative kerry presidency would be exactly the same as the actual presidency of bush. Both "poor". You are unable to conceive of any other difference. That is a republitard in a nutshell.
By the way. Here is a puzzle for you. When was the last time democrats controlled the presidency and both houses? I'll give you a hint. It was not World War II, It was after that.
So why don't you go and show me how the last time the democrats were in power there were wars based on lies, state instituted concentration camps, torture, holding people without trials or charges, and massacres of brown people.
"You never said any such thing. This little gem of a thread started when you replied to a poster that suggested that a Democratic administration would have done the same thing as the Republicans have done given the opportunity."
The subject started with me talking about impeaching bush.
"I gave you concrete examples where they did, and you went off on your little rant and personally attacked me without even the courtesy of addressing the points I made."
That's because you were comparing a ridiculusly off topic and irrelevent item during world war II to what is happening today. Again this is because you lack the ability to discern gradiation and complexity. You are incabable of thinking about things without jumping to ridiculus conclusions based on completely silly notions.
"You're either unable or unwilling to support your position, and therefore it's pointless to continue any debate."
As I said it's pointless to try to talk to a dog about colors. You are a stupid person and one whose ideology has completely blinded you to the looking at the actual facts in front of you.
Keep on believing that Kerry would be just as bad as the worst president ever and keep on beliving that the democrats would have also waged the same unjust war, tortured people, killed tens of thousands of innocent humans in a foolish attemtp to invade and occupy iraq, locked up people without representation or charges.
A fucking republitard is what you are. People like you make me sick.
You don't have any points. You are just babbling on about non sequitors. I said Bush should be impeached and that impeachement will be a deterrent to others who would do the same thing.
You then said that the guilty should not be punished because other people would do the same thing. You said this because you are unable to discern gradients. You see the world in black and white where saying some third party candidate should not be in one debate is the same thing as actually rigging an election.
So it's not a ad hominem to say that you are a republitard. You are incabable of thinking about this matter (or any matter whatwoever) because you lack any capability of judging actions. To you jaywalking is the exact same as murdering and raping a 13 year old girl. They are both crimes. Furthermore you don't think that people should be held accountable for their actions because other people would do the same thing in their position. Lat but not least you are calling for anarchy which only fools and retards are for.
Talking about this subject with you is like talking about colors with a dog.
"Perhaps you should read about FDR's presidency. "
Right so you want to go back to WWII and make a comparison to what is happening today. Right.
"Democrats actively conspired with the Republicans to sharply curb access to Presidential debates for other-party participants. "
GASP. Well that proves it then. Denying third party candidates access to a televised debate is as bad as rigging elections, waging an illegal and unjust war, curbing freedom of all americans, torturing people, and killing tens of thousands of innocent civillians.
"Perhaps you could read about how they provided federal protection for a FBI sharpshooter after he murdered a woman holding a baby, and actively prevented the state of Idaho from prosecuting him under their criminal statutes because "he was just doing his job"."
Aaah yes, back to ruby ridge. The last shelter of the republitard.
"The point is that government is not now, has never been, and will never be something that can be relied on to generally act altruistically in the governed's best interests."
So I guess you are calling for absolute anarchy then. Let me know when you get someplace with that ok?
The problem with you is that you only see the world in black and white. To you denying access to a debate is exactly like torturing people or rigging elections. To you there are no gradients.
Yes I do think it would be different. First of all kerry does not have a messiah complex and doesn't claim to receive messages from god. That alone would make a huge difference. Secondly Kerry reads. I think that might make a difference too.
The idiot here is you who would excuse any behavior no matter how vile by this administration because you think somebody else would be just as bad. I have news for you, nobody would be this bad. Nobody. No republican, no democrat, no independent. This is the worst president in the history of our country, the most vile administration in the history of this country.
I know this is going to be offensive to you but there is a reason why so few people are liberterians. LIberteriansims doesn't work. It has never worked. LIberterians ignore the entire history of mankind and pretend that something that has never worked before will work some day.
In the past few thousand years people have formed tribes, cities, communes, countries, states, of every possible form imaginable and not one liberterian society has survived long enough to make a mark.
It's not going to work in Montana (or whereever you guys want to set up) either. People in those states love their handouts from the govt for farming, ranching, logging, etc. People in those states are against abortion, against legalized drugs, against legalized prostitution. They will not appreciate you coming in and overriding their wishes. It will not be a happy joyous place.
Honestly. GIve it up. It's a pipe dream. It has never worked, it will never work.
It's so cute that the conservatives are trying to disown the man they ebraced so fully, supported with hundreds of millions of dollars, and voted for in droves.
He is your boy, if he dishonors you then it's all your fault.
Well the headline is just a blatant lie as other people have pointed out but...
You don't sue people who don't have money. Why go after some shlub?
Note: The above statement does not apply to creatures and other entitites that have eruptedd out of the orifices of the devil such as the RIAA and the MPAA.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is about to get Nukes? Are you talking about Iran who is about ten years away or Israel, pakistan, india, north korea which already has nukes. Of those Israel has been in a continual state of war for more then two decades, pakistan is being run a military dictator who has cancelled elections, north korea which is being run by a madman, and india which has a huge population to feed and a bone to pick with Pakistan.
Don't worry though. Whenever I despair about nukes I do the following exersize which helps me calm down.
1) Take a sheet of paper.
2) Divide it vertically.
3) On the left side write down all countries which have nukes.
4) On the right side write down all the countries that have used nukes in war.
That should make you feel better.
BTW: Personally I have no problem with anybody having nukes. If Iran wants them they should have them. They are surrounded by enemies some of which have nukes. If anything MAD will keep the peace between israel and iran (two religous states)
"part from everyone just getting along, the only way for there to be peace is for the "alpha wolf" to be (or appear to be) so much stronger that no one dares challenge him. "
YEs, just like Saddam, pol pot, idi amin, stalin etc.
"Only supernatural intervention can turn around the human condition."
That certainly seems like a defeatist attitude to me. I for one think it's possible for humans to reason with each other and I think God (I am pretending he does exist and is the god of the christians) did too. He gave down the ten commandments. Obey them and there will be peace. The problem is that we don't want to obey, we just want to feel good.
Sure. I mean you want to be as efficient as possible when you want to subjugate people to your will and take over their natural resources and other wealth.
There are a lot of people who are unfortable with the idea of running an ethical business. /. is full of liberterian types who believe that morals and ethics have no place in business at all. They object to having a mission statement that hints at any kind of an ethical guidance at all.
No they only sue people who they think can't fight back.
You have to think of their world of view context as well. I'll paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld.
"If you came from space and you saw a man walking a dog what would you think? The dog is walking ahead of the man, the dog shits, the man picks up the shit and carries it. Who would you think was in charge?"
Why would that matter? You think the RIAA would sue the politicians? You think they would sue any rich person? These laws are designed to put ordinary people in their place, they are not designed to effect the rich and the powerful.
I did a fresh install of XP, turned off all un needed services and my memory footprint was around 264K. I didn't have skype running so it looks like it will be really difficult to run windows and skype without half a gig or so.
"I did feel his death was played for far too much Republican gain. Especially letting G.W.B give the eulogy, when they had nothing in common."
I will quote Jim Morrison.
"Death makes angels of us all.
It puts wings where we had shoulders,
smooth as ravens claws"
Same with Nixon. A guy dies and all of a sudden he is a saint. Never mind the thousands of people that died because of him.
Of course drugs were illegal for a long time before reagan. Same with jaywalking. I remember one time in the early eighties I was walking down the street with a bong in my hand (ah the folly of youth) and a cop stopped me. He confiscated my bong and took my dope (not much enough to fill a couple of pipes). Dope was illegal but nobody did much about it because the cops knew there were bigger problems in the world to deal with.
Reagan instiguted the zero tolerance policy. That was all him. He drove that. It's all his responsibility. It's too early to try and revise that bit of history. Some of us were around and we still have clear memories.
So yes drugs were illegal back then. Reagan started the war on drugs though. There is a profound difference.
Who knows maybe Dubya will decree a zero tolerance policy for jaywalking and you will end up in jail for a decade because you didn't look both ways.
Anyway, I am trying to talk to somebody who reveres reagan. Why even bother really. Your ability to make sound judgements and think rationally has already been disproved.
Interest rates are set and controlled by the central bank. While there may be a little influence from the president he doesn't have much to do with them.
I listed my gripes. Whatever he did for business (presuming you are right and that he is solely responsible) doesn't make up for the fact that he was funding death squads in central america or locking people up for smoking a joint. In fact the war on drugs may have been the single worst policy ever taken by any president till dubya declared a war on a word.
business cycles come and go. War on drugs is still around, the people who got purged during his progrom are still dead.
I used to think highly of McCain. Not anymore though. He is toeing the line lately and has learned to shut up and sit down.
I remember Reagan. He spent the economy into insane debt that took till clinton to come out of. He instituted zero tolerance of drug laws so that having a seed meant you ended up in jail. What's worse I remember how people were having their houses confiscated because their renters smoked dope. Reagan started the war on drugs. I also remember him funding death squads in central america with arms sales to iran. I remember him falling asleep in front of the pope. I remember him confusing real life with movies. I remember nancy whispering his lines to him. I remember Lee Atwater who I believed was an actual demon roaming the earth eating souls as he went along.
Yes I remember Reagan. Bush reminds me a lot of him. I am sure he would take that as a compliment.
While I applaud Mr. Bloombergs speech to me he represents a rather puzzling person. Why is this guy a repulican. Not just him but also people like arnold schwarzenegger, Andrew Sullivan etc. I mean if you are not against gay marriage, if you don't think pre-emptive war is a good idea, if you are pro life then why are you are republican. Before anybody says anything about fiscal responsibility or smaller government I will ask you to go look up the track record of republican presidents regarding those items.
I am especially puzzled about Andrew Sullivan. This guy is gay, the republican party tried to pass a platform saying that homosexuality was a disease!. They are trying their best to deny him the right to marry, to serve his govt, live wherever he chooses etc and yet he is still a republican. Can anything be more important to you then having the same rights as everybody else in the country?
Weird.
The problem is that by the time the customer demand builds up to some critical level Lenovo might not be able to capitalize on it. Why? Mainly because MS has a history of stabbing it's partners in the back and causing them permanent harm if not corporate death. There is no reason to think that MS will not do the same to Lenovo.
I said you were a republitard. That's different from a conservative, a republican, a democrat or a liberal. Republitard is a person who is unable to think clearly, unable to grasp complex subjects, unable to think about things in a non black and white manner.
We have already established that you don't like any governments you are an anarchist.
For example you think Kerry would have made a poor president. You have no reason to believe that. You just believe it because either somebody told you to or you think you should. You think Bush is a poor president. So to you they are the same. The fact that you think Kerry would probably be a bad president and that Bush is actually a poor president carries the same amount of weight. Notice that you are unable to put any gradiations on the poorness either. To you the speculative kerry presidency would be exactly the same as the actual presidency of bush. Both "poor". You are unable to conceive of any other difference. That is a republitard in a nutshell.
By the way. Here is a puzzle for you. When was the last time democrats controlled the presidency and both houses? I'll give you a hint. It was not World War II, It was after that.
So why don't you go and show me how the last time the democrats were in power there were wars based on lies, state instituted concentration camps, torture, holding people without trials or charges, and massacres of brown people.
"You never said any such thing. This little gem of a thread started when you replied to a poster that suggested that a Democratic administration would have done the same thing as the Republicans have done given the opportunity."
The subject started with me talking about impeaching bush.
"I gave you concrete examples where they did, and you went off on your little rant and personally attacked me without even the courtesy of addressing the points I made."
That's because you were comparing a ridiculusly off topic and irrelevent item during world war II to what is happening today. Again this is because you lack the ability to discern gradiation and complexity. You are incabable of thinking about things without jumping to ridiculus conclusions based on completely silly notions.
"You're either unable or unwilling to support your position, and therefore it's pointless to continue any debate."
As I said it's pointless to try to talk to a dog about colors. You are a stupid person and one whose ideology has completely blinded you to the looking at the actual facts in front of you.
Keep on believing that Kerry would be just as bad as the worst president ever and keep on beliving that the democrats would have also waged the same unjust war, tortured people, killed tens of thousands of innocent humans in a foolish attemtp to invade and occupy iraq, locked up people without representation or charges.
A fucking republitard is what you are. People like you make me sick.
You don't have any points. You are just babbling on about non sequitors. I said Bush should be impeached and that impeachement will be a deterrent to others who would do the same thing.
You then said that the guilty should not be punished because other people would do the same thing. You said this because you are unable to discern gradients. You see the world in black and white where saying some third party candidate should not be in one debate is the same thing as actually rigging an election.
So it's not a ad hominem to say that you are a republitard. You are incabable of thinking about this matter (or any matter whatwoever) because you lack any capability of judging actions. To you jaywalking is the exact same as murdering and raping a 13 year old girl. They are both crimes. Furthermore you don't think that people should be held accountable for their actions because other people would do the same thing in their position. Lat but not least you are calling for anarchy which only fools and retards are for.
Talking about this subject with you is like talking about colors with a dog.
"Perhaps you should read about FDR's presidency. "
Right so you want to go back to WWII and make a comparison to what is happening today. Right.
"Democrats actively conspired with the Republicans to sharply curb access to Presidential debates for other-party participants. "
GASP. Well that proves it then. Denying third party candidates access to a televised debate is as bad as rigging elections, waging an illegal and unjust war, curbing freedom of all americans, torturing people, and killing tens of thousands of innocent civillians.
"Perhaps you could read about how they provided federal protection for a FBI sharpshooter after he murdered a woman holding a baby, and actively prevented the state of Idaho from prosecuting him under their criminal statutes because "he was just doing his job"."
Aaah yes, back to ruby ridge. The last shelter of the republitard.
"The point is that government is not now, has never been, and will never be something that can be relied on to generally act altruistically in the governed's best interests."
So I guess you are calling for absolute anarchy then. Let me know when you get someplace with that ok?
The problem with you is that you only see the world in black and white. To you denying access to a debate is exactly like torturing people or rigging elections. To you there are no gradients.
Yes I do think it would be different. First of all kerry does not have a messiah complex and doesn't claim to receive messages from god. That alone would make a huge difference. Secondly Kerry reads. I think that might make a difference too.
The idiot here is you who would excuse any behavior no matter how vile by this administration because you think somebody else would be just as bad. I have news for you, nobody would be this bad. Nobody. No republican, no democrat, no independent. This is the worst president in the history of our country, the most vile administration in the history of this country.
There were periods in history where the dems ran the govt. They controlled both houses and the presidency. They never did anything like this.
They had the opportunity and the means and they didn't do it.
I guess I don't believe that they would do the same thing.
Feel free to change the subject and tell me how they would have instituted a socialist govt run by the UN though.
I know this is going to be offensive to you but there is a reason why so few people are liberterians. LIberteriansims doesn't work. It has never worked. LIberterians ignore the entire history of mankind and pretend that something that has never worked before will work some day.
In the past few thousand years people have formed tribes, cities, communes, countries, states, of every possible form imaginable and not one liberterian society has survived long enough to make a mark.
It's not going to work in Montana (or whereever you guys want to set up) either. People in those states love their handouts from the govt for farming, ranching, logging, etc. People in those states are against abortion, against legalized drugs, against legalized prostitution. They will not appreciate you coming in and overriding their wishes. It will not be a happy joyous place.
Honestly. GIve it up. It's a pipe dream. It has never worked, it will never work.
It's so cute that the conservatives are trying to disown the man they ebraced so fully, supported with hundreds of millions of dollars, and voted for in droves.
He is your boy, if he dishonors you then it's all your fault.
No the solution is to impeach this pig. That might teach future pigs a lesson.
Well the headline is just a blatant lie as other people have pointed out but...
You don't sue people who don't have money. Why go after some shlub?
Note: The above statement does not apply to creatures and other entitites that have eruptedd out of the orifices of the devil such as the RIAA and the MPAA.