I believe the parent made a subtle reference to a previous article where a slashdotter mentioned that he didn't need to leave the country to experience what the world had to offer. And everyone chewed him out for suggesting that heading into an ethnic part of town was all he needed to do to experience culture.
Traditional martial arts that many kids study work well on more traditional weapons like knives. Kung Fu, et al., don't do much against someone with a gun, IMHO.
Obviously you have not transcended the level where you can block bullets.
Come to my class, and for 10 easy payments of $98.99, I can teach you to reach this zen.
So now it's intent that makes something wrong? By your reasoning, if none of us participated in WWII, the death of millions of Jews would be perfectly okay because we didn't intend to cause it. Even though we would have been complicit in our inaction. This type of thinking is why the UN is a useless body.
Yes, 'intent' is that thing that makes something wrong. Sort of like the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. The US never killed Jews, nor did they intend to, which makes that example rather moot. Just so you know, the genocide of Jews occurred after the war started when Hitler decided to take over Europe. And another thing, if you say the UN is a useless body, Jews were getting exterminated by the millions long before the US got involved. If it weren't for the Japanese, the US would have just sat back and watched. Otherwise, why else would WWII have started in 1941 according to your history, a full 2 years later than when it really did?
if one must intend to cause death for it to be wrong, then the US military is exonerated. Accidents cannot be intentional.
I hardly call dropping bombs an acccident.
Again, just showing your ignorance. One of the main planks of the pro-war stance was "freedom for the Iraqi people". WMDs were just the clincher
My ignorance? Surely you jest. Here's a timeline with all the associated White House Press releases. But in case you're to proud to read, the first several lines include statements from your leader's State of the Union Address, President Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." No where do I see "free the opressed".
Then explain what the huge fuss was about Weapon Inspectors? Sure, they were UN, but they didn't find anything, nor did your military after the invasion. The focus was to find these WMDs to justify your war. Now, spinsters worked their magic, and you all think it's for Iraqi freedom. What next? Iranian freedom? North Korean? Hell, North Korea even blatanly said they have nukes. No need for weapon inspectors, why not just march your collective freedom providing army over there? The likely reason why GWB hasn't done so is because North Korea would hand your asses back on a nuke missile plate, and because North Korea has fuck all in terms of oil. No business there. Check out all the contracts US companies have received from Iraq... Haliburton? Explain that one genius.
Don't get me started on Blair. He's just a damn "yes-man" kissing GWB's ass. It's no surprise the British don't like him. I'm just happy that they don't have the military might to cause more problems.
As for the first Gulf War, I didn't forget, I just didn't see the problem there. You had Iraq invade a foreign country, Kuwait needed help, US provided it. The coalition won, that's that. Don't need to annihilate a country to show them their defeated.
For peacekeeping in those said nations of Cyprus, Bosnia, etc. What do you propose? At least our solution does not involved using weapons to destroy. I never said it was a perfect science, but according to you, getting involved without using violence is not a solution. So go ahead big shot, tell us what you would do? Ignore it? Bomb them? What? You got a better plan?
Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation.
You're stating this as an absolute? So we never should have declared war on Germany or Japan during WWII? Or perhaps you admit that this is a matter for situational ethics, and a much more complicated issue than your hippie beliefs will allow you to admit?
Of course it's an absolute. Why is war a good thing? People DIE. The reason why war was declared on Germany and Japan was because they were actively killing and invadin
Because this would be very difficult to measure. The thing is, people like you don't consider deaths due to the UN embargoes, totalitarian regimes, or anything like that, as being countable. Only deaths as the result of US military action. Kind of shows your whole agenda.
There may be death as an indirect result UN Embargoes, but unlike US military action, there wasn't an intent to do so. US Military actually went in and bombed the crap out of them. Don't tell me "collateral damage" is indirect. It's a BOMB for Christ's sake, it's meant to blow up things.
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Free the people of Iraq from the start? The initial reason for war in Iraq was for terrorists and WMDs. Have you forgotten that already? What about the debacle regarding false reports of the CIA? Forget that too? News reports when the Iraqi war started all concentrated on looking for WMDs that Saddam had as well as the terrorists he was harbouring. Funny how you fail to mention that. This freedom for Iraqi people came to be only after your Gov realized it was grasping at straws to find a reason to be over there.
Oh, don't forget that the Mujahideen were also freedom fighters that you abandoned in Afganistan. Funny how they are known as terrorists now.
Where, exactly, have you prevented wars? The Sudan? Mogadishu? Bosnia? Your model of doing nothing is certainly no more effective than our model of doing something. And it has been repeatedly shown that peacekeeping forces actually do more harm than good.
Cyprus, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, just to name a few, granted we didn't stop an entire war, but stopping battles where we can does help. Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation. I would say it is more effective since we aren't actively shooting and bombing the country that we are trying to help. Please, show us where peacekeeping is more harmful than good? Never realized trying to stop a war was worse than participating in one.
Another humorous point - yes you were there, but don't you find it interesting that our presence turned the tide? We were the deciding factor in that war.
Oh yes, all hail the mighty Americans who came in half way through the war. Any country can be the deciding factor when they join the war when it's almost done. Hell, I can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match after he's fought 24 consecutive rounds against Lewis and Klitchko.
Good idea, let's build a home in insurgent controlled territory. See how long that will last. Frickin' hippie.
No, according to you, your solution would be to drop bombs on them and kill them all. Great solution there. I'm sure this is the exact reason why the world thinks so highly of US Foreign policy.
I love to hear Canadians talk about how you would make the world better.
Well, I think the world is a better place without wars. If you don't think so, why don't you live in a war torn region and tell me how great it is. We're not contributing to a war torn society, unlike your government. My country is not imposing it's lifestyle on you or anyone else, but your country is actively going to other countries and doing that very thing.
Forcing a lifestyle on others isn't the magic answer either.
Okay... I'm confused here. Are you not still using (the threat of) violence to impose your will? Using your country's resources to stop someone else from fighting a war is still interfering in the business of another nation.
First of all, the peace keepers not using the "threat of violence" to impose their will, rather, they act as a buffer zone to keep opposing faction apart.
More often than not, it's not so much fear of peace keeper's retaliation than it is respect that someone is willing to stop a war that makes this military unit useful.
I beleive using a country's resource to prevent wars is serving the greater good of humanity than it is for interfering in the business of another nation. Is it wrong to choose peace over war?
And, if memory serves, the terrorists that took down the WTC came through Canada. Are we (the US) supposed to look the other way when it comes to Canada? It seems like we did in the past, and terrorists got through, took 4 jets, crashing 3 of them into buildings. What would you suggest?
If memory serves me correctly, Canada stuck its neck out for the US by accepting all those planes destined for US airports. How many more planes could have been filled with hijackers?
Okay- how about this. I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. Its a hobby and its fun. Are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed to do this? You think more government should tell me what I can and cannot own? Are you nuts?
The laws here aren't saying that you can't own guns. They are meant to control guns, in a similar way that the DOT controls automobiles. The big problem the gun owners have here is having to register the gun with the government. This is so the govt knows who has guns and who doesn't. Also, there are certain guns that are banned as they are deemed unfit. Sort of like why is it necessary to own a high powered assault rifle when all you want to do is go deer hunting. You don't need a 30 round clip to do that.
Geez, you really need to do some research before you start making wild claims and assumptions.
Remind me again how DS1 had anything to do with our freedom.
Well, not so much our freedom as it was more for the Kuwaitis. I have to agree with going to war then as Kuwait could not defend itself. By allowing Iraq to invade a sovereign nation, it would seem that the world did not care. However, I am glad that once the Iraqi army was defeated, there was no more reason to invade Iraq.
But, DS2, that doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Stick your head into the sand if you want, but you know in your heart that these fundamentalists want nothing more than world domination so they can rid the Earth of people like you.
You're talking about Muslims as a whole. You can't define an entire country by those who lead it. Otherwise, what do you think other nations feel about the US?
You likely have zero idea as to how real Muslims feel. They are truly peace loving people who want nothing more than to be left alone. If you don't believe me, read about this Californian who is riding his motorcycle around the world. He's stopping in places like Israel, and other middle East countries. Never has he encountered "fanatics" that want to kill him. He treats them well, and they return the favour by offering him meals and a place to stay.
Perhaps you need to view the world in a different light.
But, a lot of us Americans are sick and fucking tired of seeing the lackadasical people of most of the world, let bullshit like what Saddam was getting away with, happen
Let me ask you this. Why wasn't the US military in Rwanda when there was a full on genocide? This was going on for such a long time, why didn't the US Gov feel the need to help them?
We want to make the world a better place for the oppressed. We did this for Afghantistan and Iraq already, they both held full free elections for the first time in their countries history. What has your country done to make the world better? Exactly nothing.
You can't even see past your own government and media deception to even begin to understand what your country has done on your behalf.
You haven't made it better for the "opressed". Their lives are crappier now since their country is in full civil war. They never asked for your help. And as far as I can remember, the original reason for going to Iraq was for WMDs! NOT to free the opressed. Funny how the mission statement changes when the objectives couldn't be completed.
Let's just list out the "nothing" that Canada has done. Anytime we deploy our military (as sad as it is), we put them in world hot spots for PEACE KEEPING. We go to places to STOP wars, not to wage them.
Oh, if you want to talk about war, let's talk about WWI, and WWII. Just so you know, Canada was actively participating in the two wars SEVERAL YEARS before the US got involved. So don't ever say we have contributed nothing.
I am by no means trying to bash the US, as they are truly a leading nation. However, I am just sad that with all the resources they have to make the world a better place, they choose not to. I believe just recently that Bill Clinton mentioned that if the US government (notice I say government, as opposed to citizen) just allocated a small fraction of GWB's $80 Billion request for defense funds for Iraq to something like medicines and food, the world would be a better place.
I ask you, can you not think of a better way to spend $80B to make the world a better place than to spend it on weapons used to destroy. Spend it building homes, giving food, clothing. That is how you make a better world.
PS: I don't post anonymously because I truly believe in what I say.
You are assuming fully attentive adults. What about kids? The blind? The mentally retarded? You could effectively carry conversations with them and they are likely not going to be aware of the traffic conditions.
1. A children, or a group of children misbehaving is many more times distracting than a simple phone conversation. How do you stop the distraction then?
2. True, but I like to ignore people in my car, prefering the sounds of screams and terror as they react to my fast driving.
3. What happens to AM Talk radio shows? Pretty active conversation to concentrate on to keep on topic.
Why can't we say those drivers simply suck? I bet the same drivers would have problem without any distractions. To be thorough, they should run tests with cell phones and race car drivers like Michael Schumacher.
I had that problem too where clients would call at all sorts of weird hours. Many of which I would like to have been sleeping.
No problem giving freebies to client, but have them limited to certain hours to be free. I set my limit as to when I answer their calls, 9-10am I'll happily do "freebie" work for them, however, if they call any other hour, I'll leave it for the voice message. If it's an "emergency", I start billing. Plus, I also notice that there are less calls in the morning than in the afternoon after a day's worth of problems may have accumulated. Also, they typically don't call in problems that were the day before, so it just shows that they weren't really a problem to begin with.
They soon learn that not everything is a support call, and they learn to be self-suficient.
How about if they use just enough fuel to get into orbit such that once they break the hold of gravity and get into space their speed is like 100km/h.
They send earth synchronous satellites up all the time where the velocity is much slower than a satellite that circles the earth several times. Would that not slow the shuttle speed enough such that it won't heat up during re-entry?
Random idea: if two people separately post two files that, when XOR'ed together, produce copyrighted music, can either be sued?
To the best of my knowledge XOR means "exclusive or", meaning when two signals arrive at this gate, only when one value is true does this gate pass true.
Fitting this definition to your random idea, only the person with the "right" file would be sued, since the other would not have that particular file.
US currency has introduced other colours into their paper bills. This is to make it easier to identify the different denominations. Primarily it is still green, but with highlights of other colours.
I remember when Americans used to laugh at Canada's funny money with different colours. Now they conveniently forget that thought whilst they add colour to their own money.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there's a "Special Agent Lazarus", there has got to be a "Regular Agent Lazarus".
I mean, if everyone was "special" then how do you separate the cream from the milk?
Despite what their moms told them, not everyone is special.
I believe the parent made a subtle reference to a previous article where a slashdotter mentioned that he didn't need to leave the country to experience what the world had to offer. And everyone chewed him out for suggesting that heading into an ethnic part of town was all he needed to do to experience culture.
Traditional martial arts that many kids study work well on more traditional weapons like knives. Kung Fu, et al., don't do much against someone with a gun, IMHO.
Obviously you have not transcended the level where you can block bullets.
Come to my class, and for 10 easy payments of $98.99, I can teach you to reach this zen.
half full or half empty????
Ga-damn.. they think of everything don't they???
So now it's intent that makes something wrong? By your reasoning, if none of us participated in WWII, the death of millions of Jews would be perfectly okay because we didn't intend to cause it. Even though we would have been complicit in our inaction. This type of thinking is why the UN is a useless body.
Yes, 'intent' is that thing that makes something wrong. Sort of like the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. The US never killed Jews, nor did they intend to, which makes that example rather moot. Just so you know, the genocide of Jews occurred after the war started when Hitler decided to take over Europe. And another thing, if you say the UN is a useless body, Jews were getting exterminated by the millions long before the US got involved. If it weren't for the Japanese, the US would have just sat back and watched. Otherwise, why else would WWII have started in 1941 according to your history, a full 2 years later than when it really did?
if one must intend to cause death for it to be wrong, then the US military is exonerated. Accidents cannot be intentional.
I hardly call dropping bombs an acccident.
Again, just showing your ignorance. One of the main planks of the pro-war stance was "freedom for the Iraqi people". WMDs were just the clincher
My ignorance? Surely you jest. Here's a timeline with all the associated White House Press releases. But in case you're to proud to read, the first several lines include statements from your leader's State of the Union Address, President Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." No where do I see "free the opressed".
Then explain what the huge fuss was about Weapon Inspectors? Sure, they were UN, but they didn't find anything, nor did your military after the invasion. The focus was to find these WMDs to justify your war. Now, spinsters worked their magic, and you all think it's for Iraqi freedom. What next? Iranian freedom? North Korean? Hell, North Korea even blatanly said they have nukes. No need for weapon inspectors, why not just march your collective freedom providing army over there? The likely reason why GWB hasn't done so is because North Korea would hand your asses back on a nuke missile plate, and because North Korea has fuck all in terms of oil. No business there. Check out all the contracts US companies have received from Iraq... Haliburton? Explain that one genius.
Don't get me started on Blair. He's just a damn "yes-man" kissing GWB's ass. It's no surprise the British don't like him. I'm just happy that they don't have the military might to cause more problems.
As for the first Gulf War, I didn't forget, I just didn't see the problem there. You had Iraq invade a foreign country, Kuwait needed help, US provided it. The coalition won, that's that. Don't need to annihilate a country to show them their defeated.
For peacekeeping in those said nations of Cyprus, Bosnia, etc. What do you propose? At least our solution does not involved using weapons to destroy. I never said it was a perfect science, but according to you, getting involved without using violence is not a solution. So go ahead big shot, tell us what you would do? Ignore it? Bomb them? What? You got a better plan?
Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation.
You're stating this as an absolute? So we never should have declared war on Germany or Japan during WWII? Or perhaps you admit that this is a matter for situational ethics, and a much more complicated issue than your hippie beliefs will allow you to admit?
Of course it's an absolute. Why is war a good thing? People DIE. The reason why war was declared on Germany and Japan was because they were actively killing and invadin
Because this would be very difficult to measure. The thing is, people like you don't consider deaths due to the UN embargoes, totalitarian regimes, or anything like that, as being countable. Only deaths as the result of US military action. Kind of shows your whole agenda.
There may be death as an indirect result UN Embargoes, but unlike US military action, there wasn't an intent to do so. US Military actually went in and bombed the crap out of them. Don't tell me "collateral damage" is indirect. It's a BOMB for Christ's sake, it's meant to blow up things.
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Free the people of Iraq from the start? The initial reason for war in Iraq was for terrorists and WMDs. Have you forgotten that already? What about the debacle regarding false reports of the CIA? Forget that too? News reports when the Iraqi war started all concentrated on looking for WMDs that Saddam had as well as the terrorists he was harbouring. Funny how you fail to mention that. This freedom for Iraqi people came to be only after your Gov realized it was grasping at straws to find a reason to be over there.
Oh, don't forget that the Mujahideen were also freedom fighters that you abandoned in Afganistan. Funny how they are known as terrorists now.
Where, exactly, have you prevented wars? The Sudan? Mogadishu? Bosnia? Your model of doing nothing is certainly no more effective than our model of doing something. And it has been repeatedly shown that peacekeeping forces actually do more harm than good.
Cyprus, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, just to name a few, granted we didn't stop an entire war, but stopping battles where we can does help. Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation. I would say it is more effective since we aren't actively shooting and bombing the country that we are trying to help. Please, show us where peacekeeping is more harmful than good? Never realized trying to stop a war was worse than participating in one.
Another humorous point - yes you were there, but don't you find it interesting that our presence turned the tide? We were the deciding factor in that war.
Oh yes, all hail the mighty Americans who came in half way through the war. Any country can be the deciding factor when they join the war when it's almost done. Hell, I can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match after he's fought 24 consecutive rounds against Lewis and Klitchko.
Good idea, let's build a home in insurgent controlled territory. See how long that will last. Frickin' hippie.
No, according to you, your solution would be to drop bombs on them and kill them all. Great solution there. I'm sure this is the exact reason why the world thinks so highly of US Foreign policy.
I love to hear Canadians talk about how you would make the world better.
Well, I think the world is a better place without wars. If you don't think so, why don't you live in a war torn region and tell me how great it is. We're not contributing to a war torn society, unlike your government. My country is not imposing it's lifestyle on you or anyone else, but your country is actively going to other countries and doing that very thing.
Forcing a lifestyle on others isn't the magic answer either.
Okay... I'm confused here. Are you not still using (the threat of) violence to impose your will? Using your country's resources to stop someone else from fighting a war is still interfering in the business of another nation.
First of all, the peace keepers not using the "threat of violence" to impose their will, rather, they act as a buffer zone to keep opposing faction apart.
More often than not, it's not so much fear of peace keeper's retaliation than it is respect that someone is willing to stop a war that makes this military unit useful.
I beleive using a country's resource to prevent wars is serving the greater good of humanity than it is for interfering in the business of another nation. Is it wrong to choose peace over war?
And, if memory serves, the terrorists that took down the WTC came through Canada.
Are we (the US) supposed to look the other way when it comes to Canada? It seems like we did in the past, and terrorists got through, took 4 jets, crashing 3 of them into buildings. What would you suggest?
If memory serves me correctly, Canada stuck its neck out for the US by accepting all those planes destined for US airports. How many more planes could have been filled with hijackers?
Check your facts about the hijackers.
Okay- how about this. I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. Its a hobby and its fun. Are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed to do this? You think more government should tell me what I can and cannot own? Are you nuts?
The laws here aren't saying that you can't own guns. They are meant to control guns, in a similar way that the DOT controls automobiles. The big problem the gun owners have here is having to register the gun with the government. This is so the govt knows who has guns and who doesn't. Also, there are certain guns that are banned as they are deemed unfit. Sort of like why is it necessary to own a high powered assault rifle when all you want to do is go deer hunting. You don't need a 30 round clip to do that.
Geez, you really need to do some research before you start making wild claims and assumptions.
Remind me again how DS1 had anything to do with our freedom.
Well, not so much our freedom as it was more for the Kuwaitis. I have to agree with going to war then as Kuwait could not defend itself. By allowing Iraq to invade a sovereign nation, it would seem that the world did not care. However, I am glad that once the Iraqi army was defeated, there was no more reason to invade Iraq.
But, DS2, that doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Stick your head into the sand if you want, but you know in your heart that these fundamentalists want nothing more than world domination so they can rid the Earth of people like you.
You're talking about Muslims as a whole. You can't define an entire country by those who lead it. Otherwise, what do you think other nations feel about the US?
You likely have zero idea as to how real Muslims feel. They are truly peace loving people who want nothing more than to be left alone. If you don't believe me, read about this Californian who is riding his motorcycle around the world. He's stopping in places like Israel, and other middle East countries. Never has he encountered "fanatics" that want to kill him. He treats them well, and they return the favour by offering him meals and a place to stay.
Perhaps you need to view the world in a different light.
But, a lot of us Americans are sick and fucking tired of seeing the lackadasical people of most of the world, let bullshit like what Saddam was getting away with, happen
Let me ask you this. Why wasn't the US military in Rwanda when there was a full on genocide? This was going on for such a long time, why didn't the US Gov feel the need to help them?
We want to make the world a better place for the oppressed. We did this for Afghantistan and Iraq already, they both held full free elections for the first time in their countries history. What has your country done to make the world better? Exactly nothing.
You can't even see past your own government and media deception to even begin to understand what your country has done on your behalf.
You haven't made it better for the "opressed". Their lives are crappier now since their country is in full civil war. They never asked for your help. And as far as I can remember, the original reason for going to Iraq was for WMDs! NOT to free the opressed. Funny how the mission statement changes when the objectives couldn't be completed.
Let's just list out the "nothing" that Canada has done. Anytime we deploy our military (as sad as it is), we put them in world hot spots for PEACE KEEPING. We go to places to STOP wars, not to wage them.
Oh, if you want to talk about war, let's talk about WWI, and WWII. Just so you know, Canada was actively participating in the two wars SEVERAL YEARS before the US got involved. So don't ever say we have contributed nothing.
I am by no means trying to bash the US, as they are truly a leading nation. However, I am just sad that with all the resources they have to make the world a better place, they choose not to. I believe just recently that Bill Clinton mentioned that if the US government (notice I say government, as opposed to citizen) just allocated a small fraction of GWB's $80 Billion request for defense funds for Iraq to something like medicines and food, the world would be a better place.
I ask you, can you not think of a better way to spend $80B to make the world a better place than to spend it on weapons used to destroy. Spend it building homes, giving food, clothing. That is how you make a better world.
PS: I don't post anonymously because I truly believe in what I say.
BTW, hopefully you can be as eloquent in Arabic and Farsi--you might need to in the future.
This is because North America has an invading army of Arabic origin?
Last I checked, the Arabs were perfectly fine keeping to themselves when left alone.
It'd be cheaper to replace the printer and get a free cartridge instead.
Teach your children to behave in the car.
I'd rather beat them.
You are assuming fully attentive adults. What about kids? The blind? The mentally retarded? You could effectively carry conversations with them and they are likely not going to be aware of the traffic conditions.
1. A children, or a group of children misbehaving is many more times distracting than a simple phone conversation. How do you stop the distraction then?
2. True, but I like to ignore people in my car, prefering the sounds of screams and terror as they react to my fast driving.
3. What happens to AM Talk radio shows? Pretty active conversation to concentrate on to keep on topic.
Why can't we say those drivers simply suck? I bet the same drivers would have problem without any distractions. To be thorough, they should run tests with cell phones and race car drivers like Michael Schumacher.
I had that problem too where clients would call at all sorts of weird hours. Many of which I would like to have been sleeping.
No problem giving freebies to client, but have them limited to certain hours to be free. I set my limit as to when I answer their calls, 9-10am I'll happily do "freebie" work for them, however, if they call any other hour, I'll leave it for the voice message. If it's an "emergency", I start billing. Plus, I also notice that there are less calls in the morning than in the afternoon after a day's worth of problems may have accumulated. Also, they typically don't call in problems that were the day before, so it just shows that they weren't really a problem to begin with.
They soon learn that not everything is a support call, and they learn to be self-suficient.
How about if they use just enough fuel to get into orbit such that once they break the hold of gravity and get into space their speed is like 100km/h.
They send earth synchronous satellites up all the time where the velocity is much slower than a satellite that circles the earth several times. Would that not slow the shuttle speed enough such that it won't heat up during re-entry?
You complain about nerds and the dorkiest of dorks. Haha... have a look around you. Notice something? You're posting on /.
I have that shame when coming here too, I often close the browser window to hide my shame when the boss walks in.
Random idea: if two people separately post two files that, when XOR'ed together, produce copyrighted music, can either be sued?
To the best of my knowledge XOR means "exclusive or", meaning when two signals arrive at this gate, only when one value is true does this gate pass true.
Fitting this definition to your random idea, only the person with the "right" file would be sued, since the other would not have that particular file.
"Why didn't you tell me?"
"But I--"
"Well, that's alright, but I did notice that you managed to get the lastest Jenna Jameson. I've been looking for that everywhere! So, is it any good?"
I thought your sig came from Yoda?
US currency has introduced other colours into their paper bills. This is to make it easier to identify the different denominations. Primarily it is still green, but with highlights of other colours.
I remember when Americans used to laugh at Canada's funny money with different colours. Now they conveniently forget that thought whilst they add colour to their own money.