As opposed to, what, how Christianity spread? Remember the good ol' Crusades? Hey, they didn't even care WHO they robbed! Christians, Jews, whoever!
Here's food for thought: A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs. The base, though, is made up of people. People, on the whole, are pretty god damn stupid. And stupid people cause a lot of really stupid problems.
Islam itself is perfectly fine. Want proof? Last I checked, most Muslims don't even live in the Middle East. They live in the West Pacific. You know, Indonesia and such. Maybe not the most stable region in the world, but we're not exactly getting the same problems.
Let's face it. In any religion, if you look hard enough and interpret loosely enough, you can justify pretty much anything. And assholes can and do. This is true then, it's true now, and it'll be true tomorrow. As long as there's religion, there will be people willing to spread it peacefully with books, and people who spread it at the point of a gun.
I'm praying these people you met were at an insane asylum/idiots convention/*insert another place for crazy people* because a dictator is a dictator. Or maybe they're just a few examples of the EXTREME left.
You, and many others, seem to misunderstand what I said. The "it" in my post refers to this "missile defense system," not the army.
I do not LIKE armies, but I do understand their necessity in this day and age.
Of course, this leads to problems when the dictator trying to shoot you is the one who CONTROLS the army, and got to power by other means (not trying to say that's happening now, but just a theoretical situation).
But I'd also like to point out, I'm in America. Who in their right mind would invade us? I'm not saying because we're better than them, or we're unbeatable or some other patriotic garbage, but from a military standpoint, how do you quickly conquer a country an ocean away from most other first world nations and so incredibly wide that you would not be stopped quickly? Even if it did happen, see the scale of America. The odds of my area in particular of being invaded is particularly low.
Again, this is not a cry of "get rid of the armies," I'm just saying I'm not particularly worried about being killed by a foreign invasion.
Okay, I don't call myself liberal, but where in the nine hells did you get the idea that Fidel Castro is liked by ANY chunk of America? Where on Earth did you come up with that factoid? Everyone I know, on all sides of the spectrum, are waiting for him to kick the bucket. So, how can you make such a bold claim?
I most certainly agree. Terrorism is an idea and a strategy, and you can't declare a war on it anymore than you can declare war on flanking. But I thought this long before the war in Iraq began (and still no one can tell me what, exactly, Iraq has to do with said "war.")
But to me, the idea that we would invade Russia is absolutely absurd. Maybe I'm naive? But, why would we ever want to? It feels even beyond the barely-there justification of Iraq.
I know you're just a troll, but, it's kinda hard to hit "terr'ists" with WMDs. Considering they're not a country... or a city... or in any way organized enough to really have some sort of location that can be targeted.
Honestly, I don't get it. Both why Putin would make an ass out of himself like this, and why we need missile defense systems in Europe. But then again, I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.
Still, sounds like more politicians trying to flex their muscles.
Hmm. That sounds like it takes work, openness, the will to make sacrifices, and patience....Can't I just take all that in pill form?
(I kid.)
Personally, I look at sex like this: It's just a hormonal desire to procreate, as through the stimulation of specific nerves in the body. Marriage is a legal binding contract, and that cannot and will not stop these desires. Suppressing them and pretending they don't exist will not, like most things, help the problem at all. Looking at some young stud/hottie/whatever and feeling attracted is natural and does not mean you are not loved or not attractive, too. It's just animal nature....Of course, I'm also a 20 year old virgin who's never had a date in his life, and will spend this Saturday night as he has every saturday night: Playing videogames and trying to take over the world. So, you know, grain of salt and all that.
I think he is implying the old "the thumb is not a finger" argument.
I'm not a doctor. I've not been to medical school. I feel faint at the sight of blood. But I think, whether it is or it is not... "Close enough." If someone is hurt badly, and you hold out your open palm and say "how many fingers am I holding up?" And he says "5" you don't say "WRONG, the thumb is not a finger, only 4!"
Somehow, I doubt Freud's work would be as widely known if he had come up with "ring finger envy."
In other news, men around the world replied to the findings with a cry of "Oh yeah? You should see my OTHER ratio." Women world around responded by placing their foreheads in their palms and sighing.
Please note while I agree with all that you said, I meant we don't speak of these embarrassing moments TODAY. The only time I seem to notice Vietnam come up in public is "we can't treat our troops like that again" (though minor browsing shows that these claims of "spitting on the troops" and such are at best, exaggerated). I can't speak for everyone, but growing up, "we" were the good guys, and anyone we thought was bad. Fortunately, it didn't take long to realize what a load of crap this was. (It's war. There is no good guys or bad guys) And the Vietnam war was explained to me as "Well, we could have won, we just didn't want to stay that long" or such.
Anyway, anecdotal evidence is always a pure indicator, right? Right??
Oh, and yes, McCain is a vet. In fact, he's getting a lot of cold shoulders from Republican groups because he opposes torture. He opposes it because he was CAUGHT by the Vietnamese and tortured. So he knows QUITE a bit on the subject.
Well put. Very well put. I'm not a historian, but I'd like to add, that there is a large difference between a government surrendering and its people surrendering. As a government, surrender makes sense. The German war machine was on your border and could burn you to the ground in an instant. The country, as you said, had lost millions already, and did not wish to do so again. Add to this the historic and cultural value of the country, and it makes little sense to fight a hopeless battle that will only end in ruination of many areas. At least in surrender, people, especially the non-soldiers, may have better chances of surviving than if artillery was bombarding their homes. Courage and bravery isn't always to throw everything away to die a meaningless death.
On the other hand, the French Resistance, from what I have read of them, were not particularly the type of people you wanted to be on the wrong side of a rifle with. And this is AFTER the brutal initial assaults before the surrender.
As an American, I have noticed we don't tend to talk about our more embarrassing military times (1812, Korea, Vietnam) but maaaaaan, did we ever kick that Hitler's ass with one hand tied behind our backs whole the girly French fell down and cried, amirite? This notion is sadly prevalent, but it's just not true. (Let's face it. America didn't "win the war." The Russians did much of the grunt work, and we came in late. Did we help? Most certainly. But it wasn't exactly "America shows up and the Nazis flee in terror")
France and America are tied in many ways. We are a people of a shared history, and should respect each other for that.
I wouldn't say you're talking to the wind. It's just, those of us who DO question what we're fed, wonder what we're NOT being told, and truly want to learn the truth... What are our options? Where can I go that I won't be fed hand-picked drivel to try and sway my opinions? It's bad enough we've basically voting between clones, but where DO you go for real news?
When I see family members watching the news, I often get irritated and scream, "How can you WATCH this junk? This isn't news at all!" usually to responses of "Well, most people think real news is too depressing." (Yes, because ignoring the problem will make it better)
So, really, what now? Who do we trust? I could spend every waking hour fact checking news, but... I do wish to have some semblance of life OUTSIDE the news (well, if I had a life at all... theoretically).
... Okay, look, if you're going to bring logic and reason into this, and start expecting some sort of debate, you're REALLY going to take all the fun out of this bombing run.
I'm not saying that China really is to blame, or that Kyoto is a good thing or a bad thing, or anything like that. I'm just saying, there are problems in the world, and if bombing random countries for no real reason to fix them is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Clearly, by what you and the GP said, there is only one solution: Blame China. For too long have they taken our manufacturing away! Quick, somebody bomb them before we think about it!
No, you can be charged with plenty of other laws, I'm sure. I'd like to be more specific, but I'm fairly certain hacking into another person's database in itself is a crime. Unless you meant physically break into their database, wherein you're charge with unlawful entry. So, yeah, you can get busted for a lot of other things. (Especially if you claim it as your own. Plagarism.)
I don't recall who, but a comedian once said "I wish I could be a 2nd grade teacher, because when you're in second grade, you don't know ANYTHING! You can go up on the board and write 'Two + two = chair' 'Oh my god, they're writing it down! They're actually writing it down!'"
This is why I think religion is dangerous to a young mind.It's all fine and dandy when you're an adult (or even a teen) but when from day 1 you're told that God does everything, or something like that, well, it's pretty much the foundation for all your future thoughts and will be difficult to get around that thinking.
I'll make this short: Evolution is just a theory. This is undeniable. But so is gravity. And thermodynamics. And well, pretty much every act of physics and biology. That's the funny thing about facts: You can never be 100% sure about them. I mean, okay, so for the past, I don't know, some-odd billion years or more, we've seen evidence that objects of mass have an attractive force between them. We called it gravity. But, you know, I suppose any day now, theoretically, it could just stop, hey why not? Gravity's just a theory!
Watch my keen, tactical observational and logical skills: Bears, boars, and lions all exist, so they made it to the ark. These creatures are manly. Dragons, unicorns, and faeries are all mythical, so they didn't. Girls like these creatures more, in general. Humans tend to like things similar to themselves. Therefore, dragons, unicorns, and faeries are girly. Girls take FOREVER to get ready to go anywhere. Therefore, they all missed the ark because they were "still putting on their face" when the ark left. Damn women.
On a side thought, if the entire world was flooded, why don't we find fossils/fish remains on the top of tall mountains, usually? You'd think the fish of the world would have swam to these new areas.
Well, I would like to agree with you, but, well, if you're an optimist, it's highly unlikely. I'm a very cynical. In an ordinary case, I'd imagine that this is true. But this is not an ordinary case. This isn't student vs. the guy down the street. This is student vs. All-Encompassing Corporate Powerhouse. And I hate to say it, but with a legal team that only a corporation can afford, you're pretty much boned.
Let's say they don't hire an amazing lawyer, but an average one. That's STILL a major expenditure. And how long can they afford that? The RIAA is quite good at stalling the courts.
IMHO, the reason a few dozen of these cases have failed is because the defendants were so obviously innocent that no trial was needed (I.E. suing a dead person, someone with no computer, etc.). But sadly, many of these cases are not so easily decided from any standpoint (especially taking complex issues as fair use and privacy into effect). In the long run, a settlement becomes the only viable solution.
Your champion vs. champion example suits the modern American legal system well. The truth has become merely a minor detail. Like the old saying, "the winners write the history books." The truth becomes whatever the team with the better legal squad wants it to be. Any actual truth is of little consequence.
And yes, I *AM* quite the smash at parties. I've been told my smile brightens up the room like nothing else.
As I have said in other posts here, I was mistaken. What I was trying to say, or rather, should have been trying to say, was that copyright infringement is not a CRIMINAL offense, but a civil one. I believe there is an important distinction between the two. The difference between stealing and infringement. The difference between stealing credit and copying designs.
And with the division of the profits on a CD, I know that many, many people are involved in the creation of the CD, and it must be broken down, but at the same time, I think the way it is broken down is disproportionate to the work involved.
Again, I apologize for my ignorance on the subject, but in my defense, at least it's through making an ass of myself that I learn these things and... hey, at least I'm not a senator proposing legislation to change these things without research!
In this regard, you are right, and I was wrong, and I apologize. I got my concept of legality mixed up there. I should have said they committed no CRIMINAL offense, but a civil offense. I do think that there is a significant difference between the two, and is often where the line is drawn between "stealing" and "infringement."
Okay, in this case, you could make a case for theft. You have taken from me something I paid money for, and I lose the ability to use it. And IIRC, when Valve was about to release Half-Life 2 and code was "stolen," well, it was copied, but also deleted, that could be called theft, too.
But we do need to differentiate, because putting a piece of paper through a copier does not disable the owner from using the data on that sheet. Taking a photo of something does not steal it (well, unless it was a light particle, but good luck copyrighting THAT.). Taking virtual data from someone, though, and then deleting their version, can be considered theft.
However, downloading Teeny Bopper Lip-synchs Vol. 40 does not disable one who owns said CD from using it (though, IMHO, if there were justice in the world, it would =p).
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to, what, how Christianity spread? Remember the good ol' Crusades? Hey, they didn't even care WHO they robbed! Christians, Jews, whoever!
Here's food for thought:
A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs.
The base, though, is made up of people.
People, on the whole, are pretty god damn stupid.
And stupid people cause a lot of really stupid problems.
Islam itself is perfectly fine. Want proof? Last I checked, most Muslims don't even live in the Middle East. They live in the West Pacific. You know, Indonesia and such. Maybe not the most stable region in the world, but we're not exactly getting the same problems.
Let's face it. In any religion, if you look hard enough and interpret loosely enough, you can justify pretty much anything. And assholes can and do. This is true then, it's true now, and it'll be true tomorrow. As long as there's religion, there will be people willing to spread it peacefully with books, and people who spread it at the point of a gun.
I'm praying these people you met were at an insane asylum/idiots convention/*insert another place for crazy people* because a dictator is a dictator. Or maybe they're just a few examples of the EXTREME left.
You, and many others, seem to misunderstand what I said. The "it" in my post refers to this "missile defense system," not the army.
I do not LIKE armies, but I do understand their necessity in this day and age.
Of course, this leads to problems when the dictator trying to shoot you is the one who CONTROLS the army, and got to power by other means (not trying to say that's happening now, but just a theoretical situation).
But I'd also like to point out, I'm in America. Who in their right mind would invade us? I'm not saying because we're better than them, or we're unbeatable or some other patriotic garbage, but from a military standpoint, how do you quickly conquer a country an ocean away from most other first world nations and so incredibly wide that you would not be stopped quickly? Even if it did happen, see the scale of America. The odds of my area in particular of being invaded is particularly low.
Again, this is not a cry of "get rid of the armies," I'm just saying I'm not particularly worried about being killed by a foreign invasion.
Okay, I don't call myself liberal, but where in the nine hells did you get the idea that Fidel Castro is liked by ANY chunk of America? Where on Earth did you come up with that factoid? Everyone I know, on all sides of the spectrum, are waiting for him to kick the bucket. So, how can you make such a bold claim?
I most certainly agree. Terrorism is an idea and a strategy, and you can't declare a war on it anymore than you can declare war on flanking. But I thought this long before the war in Iraq began (and still no one can tell me what, exactly, Iraq has to do with said "war.")
But to me, the idea that we would invade Russia is absolutely absurd. Maybe I'm naive? But, why would we ever want to? It feels even beyond the barely-there justification of Iraq.
I know you're just a troll, but, it's kinda hard to hit "terr'ists" with WMDs. Considering they're not a country... or a city... or in any way organized enough to really have some sort of location that can be targeted.
Honestly, I don't get it. Both why Putin would make an ass out of himself like this, and why we need missile defense systems in Europe. But then again, I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.
Still, sounds like more politicians trying to flex their muscles.
Don't give yourself too much credit. When your mind and your ego are already as low as you can go, you don't NEED supports!
...Actually, I DID tell people that. I mean, I was in Middle School at the time...
And I had no friends...
BUT! I didn't get beat up!
Hmm. That sounds like it takes work, openness, the will to make sacrifices, and patience. ...Can't I just take all that in pill form?
...Of course, I'm also a 20 year old virgin who's never had a date in his life, and will spend this Saturday night as he has every saturday night: Playing videogames and trying to take over the world. So, you know, grain of salt and all that.
(I kid.)
Personally, I look at sex like this: It's just a hormonal desire to procreate, as through the stimulation of specific nerves in the body. Marriage is a legal binding contract, and that cannot and will not stop these desires. Suppressing them and pretending they don't exist will not, like most things, help the problem at all. Looking at some young stud/hottie/whatever and feeling attracted is natural and does not mean you are not loved or not attractive, too. It's just animal nature.
In the GP's defense, a woman won't try to kill you and take your wang afterwards... ...At least, not that I've ever heard of.
I think he is implying the old "the thumb is not a finger" argument.
I'm not a doctor. I've not been to medical school. I feel faint at the sight of blood. But I think, whether it is or it is not... "Close enough." If someone is hurt badly, and you hold out your open palm and say "how many fingers am I holding up?" And he says "5" you don't say "WRONG, the thumb is not a finger, only 4!"
Somehow, I doubt Freud's work would be as widely known if he had come up with "ring finger envy."
In other news, men around the world replied to the findings with a cry of "Oh yeah? You should see my OTHER ratio." Women world around responded by placing their foreheads in their palms and sighing.
Please note while I agree with all that you said, I meant we don't speak of these embarrassing moments TODAY. The only time I seem to notice Vietnam come up in public is "we can't treat our troops like that again" (though minor browsing shows that these claims of "spitting on the troops" and such are at best, exaggerated). I can't speak for everyone, but growing up, "we" were the good guys, and anyone we thought was bad. Fortunately, it didn't take long to realize what a load of crap this was. (It's war. There is no good guys or bad guys) And the Vietnam war was explained to me as "Well, we could have won, we just didn't want to stay that long" or such.
Anyway, anecdotal evidence is always a pure indicator, right? Right??
Oh, and yes, McCain is a vet. In fact, he's getting a lot of cold shoulders from Republican groups because he opposes torture. He opposes it because he was CAUGHT by the Vietnamese and tortured. So he knows QUITE a bit on the subject.
Well put. Very well put. I'm not a historian, but I'd like to add, that there is a large difference between a government surrendering and its people surrendering. As a government, surrender makes sense. The German war machine was on your border and could burn you to the ground in an instant. The country, as you said, had lost millions already, and did not wish to do so again. Add to this the historic and cultural value of the country, and it makes little sense to fight a hopeless battle that will only end in ruination of many areas. At least in surrender, people, especially the non-soldiers, may have better chances of surviving than if artillery was bombarding their homes. Courage and bravery isn't always to throw everything away to die a meaningless death.
On the other hand, the French Resistance, from what I have read of them, were not particularly the type of people you wanted to be on the wrong side of a rifle with.
And this is AFTER the brutal initial assaults before the surrender.
As an American, I have noticed we don't tend to talk about our more embarrassing military times (1812, Korea, Vietnam) but maaaaaan, did we ever kick that Hitler's ass with one hand tied behind our backs whole the girly French fell down and cried, amirite? This notion is sadly prevalent, but it's just not true. (Let's face it. America didn't "win the war." The Russians did much of the grunt work, and we came in late. Did we help? Most certainly. But it wasn't exactly "America shows up and the Nazis flee in terror")
France and America are tied in many ways. We are a people of a shared history, and should respect each other for that.
I wouldn't say you're talking to the wind. It's just, those of us who DO question what we're fed, wonder what we're NOT being told, and truly want to learn the truth... What are our options? Where can I go that I won't be fed hand-picked drivel to try and sway my opinions? It's bad enough we've basically voting between clones, but where DO you go for real news?
When I see family members watching the news, I often get irritated and scream, "How can you WATCH this junk? This isn't news at all!" usually to responses of "Well, most people think real news is too depressing." (Yes, because ignoring the problem will make it better)
So, really, what now? Who do we trust? I could spend every waking hour fact checking news, but... I do wish to have some semblance of life OUTSIDE the news (well, if I had a life at all... theoretically).
...
Okay, look, if you're going to bring logic and reason into this, and start expecting some sort of debate, you're REALLY going to take all the fun out of this bombing run.
I'm not saying that China really is to blame, or that Kyoto is a good thing or a bad thing, or anything like that.
I'm just saying, there are problems in the world, and if bombing random countries for no real reason to fix them is wrong, I don't want to be right.
(Note: This is a joke. Bombings are bad, mm'kay?)
Clearly, by what you and the GP said, there is only one solution:
Blame China.
For too long have they taken our manufacturing away! Quick, somebody bomb them before we think about it!
No, you can be charged with plenty of other laws, I'm sure. I'd like to be more specific, but I'm fairly certain hacking into another person's database in itself is a crime. Unless you meant physically break into their database, wherein you're charge with unlawful entry. So, yeah, you can get busted for a lot of other things. (Especially if you claim it as your own. Plagarism.)
I don't recall who, but a comedian once said "I wish I could be a 2nd grade teacher, because when you're in second grade, you don't know ANYTHING! You can go up on the board and write 'Two + two = chair' 'Oh my god, they're writing it down! They're actually writing it down!'"
This is why I think religion is dangerous to a young mind.It's all fine and dandy when you're an adult (or even a teen) but when from day 1 you're told that God does everything, or something like that, well, it's pretty much the foundation for all your future thoughts and will be difficult to get around that thinking.
I'll make this short:
Evolution is just a theory. This is undeniable.
But so is gravity.
And thermodynamics.
And well, pretty much every act of physics and biology.
That's the funny thing about facts: You can never be 100% sure about them. I mean, okay, so for the past, I don't know, some-odd billion years or more, we've seen evidence that objects of mass have an attractive force between them. We called it gravity. But, you know, I suppose any day now, theoretically, it could just stop, hey why not? Gravity's just a theory!
Watch my keen, tactical observational and logical skills:
Bears, boars, and lions all exist, so they made it to the ark. These creatures are manly.
Dragons, unicorns, and faeries are all mythical, so they didn't. Girls like these creatures more, in general.
Humans tend to like things similar to themselves. Therefore, dragons, unicorns, and faeries are girly.
Girls take FOREVER to get ready to go anywhere.
Therefore, they all missed the ark because they were "still putting on their face" when the ark left.
Damn women.
On a side thought, if the entire world was flooded, why don't we find fossils/fish remains on the top of tall mountains, usually? You'd think the fish of the world would have swam to these new areas.
Well, I would like to agree with you, but, well, if you're an optimist, it's highly unlikely. I'm a very cynical. In an ordinary case, I'd imagine that this is true. But this is not an ordinary case. This isn't student vs. the guy down the street. This is student vs. All-Encompassing Corporate Powerhouse. And I hate to say it, but with a legal team that only a corporation can afford, you're pretty much boned.
Let's say they don't hire an amazing lawyer, but an average one. That's STILL a major expenditure. And how long can they afford that? The RIAA is quite good at stalling the courts.
IMHO, the reason a few dozen of these cases have failed is because the defendants were so obviously innocent that no trial was needed (I.E. suing a dead person, someone with no computer, etc.). But sadly, many of these cases are not so easily decided from any standpoint (especially taking complex issues as fair use and privacy into effect). In the long run, a settlement becomes the only viable solution.
Your champion vs. champion example suits the modern American legal system well. The truth has become merely a minor detail. Like the old saying, "the winners write the history books." The truth becomes whatever the team with the better legal squad wants it to be. Any actual truth is of little consequence.
And yes, I *AM* quite the smash at parties. I've been told my smile brightens up the room like nothing else.
As I have said in other posts here, I was mistaken. What I was trying to say, or rather, should have been trying to say, was that copyright infringement is not a CRIMINAL offense, but a civil one. I believe there is an important distinction between the two. The difference between stealing and infringement. The difference between stealing credit and copying designs.
And with the division of the profits on a CD, I know that many, many people are involved in the creation of the CD, and it must be broken down, but at the same time, I think the way it is broken down is disproportionate to the work involved.
Again, I apologize for my ignorance on the subject, but in my defense, at least it's through making an ass of myself that I learn these things and... hey, at least I'm not a senator proposing legislation to change these things without research!
In this regard, you are right, and I was wrong, and I apologize. I got my concept of legality mixed up there. I should have said they committed no CRIMINAL offense, but a civil offense. I do think that there is a significant difference between the two, and is often where the line is drawn between "stealing" and "infringement."
Okay, in this case, you could make a case for theft. You have taken from me something I paid money for, and I lose the ability to use it. And IIRC, when Valve was about to release Half-Life 2 and code was "stolen," well, it was copied, but also deleted, that could be called theft, too.
But we do need to differentiate, because putting a piece of paper through a copier does not disable the owner from using the data on that sheet. Taking a photo of something does not steal it (well, unless it was a light particle, but good luck copyrighting THAT.). Taking virtual data from someone, though, and then deleting their version, can be considered theft.
However, downloading Teeny Bopper Lip-synchs Vol. 40 does not disable one who owns said CD from using it (though, IMHO, if there were justice in the world, it would =p).