I stopped reading after you said "No" because your lack of a sense of humor overwhelmed my brain and I could read no more. Relax. I wasn't serial[sic].
I think his point was that what they reported was not going to be able to effect the market in any negative way, so reporting this as anything other than an assinine idea brought up by some guy writing on a website is just exaggerating.
Well I have an idea. Did anyone in the government think about telling these corporation security teams and coordinating some enhanced security in private?
There's no need to release this information to the public at all because it's not something they can do anything about. Instead you work with stock websites and the like in private to make sure they have ample security and are watching for the threat, but you don't go announcing this in public. The only reasons we logical beings can possibly see from the release of this information pertaining to national security to the public-at-large would be to either:
A) Inform the terorrists of where the leak in their information to the government is, or possibly what they know the government is going to believe because they believe everything from that source, etc.
or
B) Fear mongering for manipulation of the masses.
You choose. What kind of government do you want running your country?
That is an excellent article, and I thank you for pointing me to it. It is quite perfectly a better-written representation of the views I hold. It has been bookmarked and I will read it many times, as well as share it with friends and family.
First of all, the "genocide" as you call it was a tiny fraction of the genocide the Spanish carried out on the Native Americans on both continents in the Western Hemisphere. Then people, most likely just like you, complain that America "stole" land from the Mexicans. Well it wasn't their land in the first place! They destroyed every man, woman, and child there unless they felt like taking in Native American mistresses.
It's also important to mention that the Native Americans only learned what Total War was from the English. While the English were fighting tribes in what is now the Northeastern United States, they had rival tribes help them out. The Native Americans were astonished when they saw the English burn down an entire village with men, women, and children in it. But they learned, and they were not afraid to use that against any white people. And don't think this was the first or last time the English did this, either, because there are plenty of instances on every continent where the English committed genocide (South Africa, anyone?).
To those people who say "we" did this or "we" did that: unless you have had your life somehow lengthened extremely, none of us were around back then. The sins of the father should not become the sins of the son. I was not around to kill Native Americans, enslave Africans, or persecute minorities. I was simply born into this country, and it just so happens that I'm a white male. So keep your guilt to yourself, because I refuse to accept it as mine. I will not feel guilty for things I had no part of.
Not if it was in their own country. Killing tons of civilians and SOME soldiers does not equate to competing, especially if it's in some other country where the US Military cannot complete its function to its best ability because of "public opinion."
If it were in this country, those people would be hard-pressed to defeat the military. Just bombing places here and there is not effective to win a war. The military is still there, and is still just as strong. You've just been murdering innocent people. In order to win, as was what the GP was stating, you would need to DEFEAT the military -- something that has not happened, and will not in my opinion.
No one is suggesting we turn a blind eye to our enemies. Whatever propaganda you've heard that Democrats want to destroy the country is far-fetched at best. Think of it this way: if the country was destroyed, they wouldn't have any jobs! And they would probably be dead, too! Why would anyone wish that, especially people who fight to keep their job every couple years?
We are instead suggesting that, instead of giving up our liberties to fear, we should maintain our country the way it is, and still fight the battle. Our rights are very important. They must not be infringed upon by the government. If you wish to trade your freedom for safety, there are countries out there that will offer you such a life. Move along, now, because you obviously do not support the true United States of America. As so many are fond of saying, "love this country or leave it." What some don't realize is that this country was founded upon freedom and rights of its citizens. We have challenges and dangers. This has always been the truth for our country. But to cower in fear from such things is not the American way. We should keep our doors open, and not be controlled like children. Instead we should be brave in the face of danger and do our best to be vigilant and report suspicious activity. There is no need to abridge freedoms in order to stop terrorists.
That is the American way. That is how you may, perhaps, die for this country. By supporting this country for the way that it is intended to work. Go out and live free, as this country is meant to be. By abridging freedoms, we move toward anti-American policies, and are in fact just injuring our country and helping our enemies. We MUST maintain our rights and freedoms in order to win the fight! Otherwise, what are we fighting for?
We could stop all the murders in the country if we took away all the weapons and monitored people 24-7, too. Or we could stop car accidents if we had public transportation for every single person here. We could even stop people from stealing if we had people report all their possessions to the government, and inspected their homes regularly to ensure they did not possess anything that they were not reporting. Well you have nothing to hide, right? So why can't we do that? Because that is not the American way. We respect the citizens' rights over the government's.
This is a good point that often gets misrepresented. We have to fight for our freedom, and that includes standing up to people in our government who would take away that freedom for what they would have you believe is "safety." And it's funny, because they turn and call the people opposing that "communists" when giving up your rights in such a way would be considered pretty "communist" to me. Or fascist. They may be on the opposite sides of the spectrum, but in practice they share many ideals.
Life would be pretty boring if the government told you every detail of what you can and cannot do, how to do it, and had control over your life. I prefer living free. Someone referenced Star Trek VI, and that was a good quote to encompass what we should all embrace as Americans.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -directly from the constitution.
That sounds like a clear-cut way of saying that the government shall not be religiously influenced. There have been many Christian influences on our government in the past (and the present) mainly because most of the people who live(d) here were/are Christians. The government is of the people and by the people, so it makes sense that their morals would carry over. However it is important to mention that the true morals of each religion are essentially the same: no killing, no stealing, no lying, no cheating, love thy neighbor. Too many people confuse dogma with scripture; a problem with every major religion.
Well yes, you can defeat terrorists with the military. It might just take an actual war, not the pussy-footing that we have been doing since WWII.
During WWII we laid waste to entire cities in Germany. Sure, there were people there who were not nazis and they didn't help the military. But these people are not "innocent". Anyone who allows these people to live and thrive in their country/city/whatever are just as guilty as those who oppose us openly. Like when a home in Pakistan was bombed recently, and there was outcry about innocent civilians being killed during dinner. Well, if you don't want to be killed, and want to be considered "innocent," then I suggest not having terrorists over for dinner.
Some people need to remember that war is a way of excusing the killing of lots of people. They complain when bombs kill people who aren't in the military. Well we're not going to go over there with paintball guns and tell them that they can't fight anymore because they've been tagged. War is brutal. War is hell. War is killing people. A lot of people need to wake up to that reality and stop being so PC (a trend that is unrealistic and needs to be snuffed out itself). Let's stop with the so-called "fighting" where we try to eliminate certain people with hands tied behind our backs and blindfolded. You want to control a country as an outside force? The only way to do that is by actually controlling it, each one of their citizens. Read The Prince by Machiavelli. It outlines basically the only ways to hold a territory when you have taken it militarily.
I agree. It doesn't take too much study to figure that out, and the "research" they did on airline policies were what anyone can do: test it out and observe. They routinely observed what goes on during flights, and what security was used.
Plus, it has been noted in analysis of videos and documents that they were planning on toppling the buildings to cause more destruction. They would have known, had they performed structural analysis, that the buildings were created to withstand that type of impact, and would not topple over. Instead they collapsed inward, in somewhat of an interesting display of what an implosion would look like when destroying old buildings (if you have watched videos of these events, you know what I mean).
There is no denying that they can, have, and will use our public libraries and all our resources (flight schools, colleges, etc.) to their advantage. But blocking information from everyone is counter to what this country is all about. Despite what anyone tells us, we CAN defeat terrorists without giving up our rights and freedoms.
I don't know how you can contradict yourself so obviously within two paragraphs and still post it.
These "Big Oil" companies depend on science to do business. They pay scientists to find ways to make them more money. That's what businesses do. They do NOT, however, pay scientists to do research on how their product is bad. If you don't believe that burning oil and sending up tons of it into the atmosphere is negatively impacting our environment and our health, then I say it is you who is the dullard.
I hate to sound like a hippy here, but corporations have a HUGE track record of paying for misleading scientific results in order to boost profits and fool the public into believing they're nice and only want to do what's right for the public's sake. They're interested in making money. Not helping out you and me.
For examples I could point to the aritifical shortages that Exxon imposes on the gasoline market in order to boost the price of gas, adding to their quarterly profits of over $10 billion. Or maybe further in history we can look at the misleading "research" on Marijuana, and the production of 'Reefer Madness'. These were financed by companies who were going to lose money if Marijuana were legalized.
It amazes me that people can hear/read/see no proof of something whatsoever and still spout this nonsense that their baseless beliefs are correct.
4) The results must be repeatable by independent labs.This seems to me to be a reason why all labs should be independent (that is, free of direct funding from groups interested in selling said results to the public to their benefit). Why do we have a possibly compromised lab doing work that is just going to be repeated by an independent lab? Why don't we just cut out the middle-man?
It's nice to pretend. I don't think it's that far of a leap to take to draw the conclusion that an anti-oil "documentary" is being rejected by the NTSA because, admittedly, they are afraid of losing funding from a donor, and that the donor who would stop funding them is an oil company.
I don't see where it was said that a survey of every American worker showed that we all complain about such things. So to take one post trying to get information about how to increase productivity through eliminating cubicle farms and the like and turn it into "American workers are whiny" is a pretty far stretch.
Just sounds like you're looking for some excuse to bash Americans. The reasons behind this can be many, but I'm not going to get into this here and start an argument with you about how we're all whiny pusses and we are still more productive than you.
A lot of people in this thread should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep/ for an interesting read. There are a lot of people out there that work on very few hours of sleep, and not all at the same time.
This has been around for a while now, but not as flash memory. Rather, you can use RAM as a hard disk without moving parts, and the cost is substantially less if you can buy the RAM. In fact, there is a product on the market that supports up to 16 GB of RAM in a disk setup for $700 (plus the cost of RAM). That should be much much less than the cost of flash memory. Plus it works just as fast.
Slashdot Mirror
I stopped reading after you said "No" because your lack of a sense of humor overwhelmed my brain and I could read no more. Relax. I wasn't serial[sic].
I think his point was that what they reported was not going to be able to effect the market in any negative way, so reporting this as anything other than an assinine idea brought up by some guy writing on a website is just exaggerating.
Well I have an idea. Did anyone in the government think about telling these corporation security teams and coordinating some enhanced security in private?
There's no need to release this information to the public at all because it's not something they can do anything about. Instead you work with stock websites and the like in private to make sure they have ample security and are watching for the threat, but you don't go announcing this in public. The only reasons we logical beings can possibly see from the release of this information pertaining to national security to the public-at-large would be to either:
A) Inform the terorrists of where the leak in their information to the government is, or possibly what they know the government is going to believe because they believe everything from that source, etc.
or
B) Fear mongering for manipulation of the masses.
You choose. What kind of government do you want running your country?
So they won by telling the truth? Maybe the Republicans can try doing this one sometime.
That is an excellent article, and I thank you for pointing me to it. It is quite perfectly a better-written representation of the views I hold. It has been bookmarked and I will read it many times, as well as share it with friends and family.
First of all, the "genocide" as you call it was a tiny fraction of the genocide the Spanish carried out on the Native Americans on both continents in the Western Hemisphere. Then people, most likely just like you, complain that America "stole" land from the Mexicans. Well it wasn't their land in the first place! They destroyed every man, woman, and child there unless they felt like taking in Native American mistresses.
It's also important to mention that the Native Americans only learned what Total War was from the English. While the English were fighting tribes in what is now the Northeastern United States, they had rival tribes help them out. The Native Americans were astonished when they saw the English burn down an entire village with men, women, and children in it. But they learned, and they were not afraid to use that against any white people. And don't think this was the first or last time the English did this, either, because there are plenty of instances on every continent where the English committed genocide (South Africa, anyone?).
To those people who say "we" did this or "we" did that: unless you have had your life somehow lengthened extremely, none of us were around back then. The sins of the father should not become the sins of the son. I was not around to kill Native Americans, enslave Africans, or persecute minorities. I was simply born into this country, and it just so happens that I'm a white male. So keep your guilt to yourself, because I refuse to accept it as mine. I will not feel guilty for things I had no part of.
Not if it was in their own country. Killing tons of civilians and SOME soldiers does not equate to competing, especially if it's in some other country where the US Military cannot complete its function to its best ability because of "public opinion."
If it were in this country, those people would be hard-pressed to defeat the military. Just bombing places here and there is not effective to win a war. The military is still there, and is still just as strong. You've just been murdering innocent people. In order to win, as was what the GP was stating, you would need to DEFEAT the military -- something that has not happened, and will not in my opinion.
No one is suggesting we turn a blind eye to our enemies. Whatever propaganda you've heard that Democrats want to destroy the country is far-fetched at best. Think of it this way: if the country was destroyed, they wouldn't have any jobs! And they would probably be dead, too! Why would anyone wish that, especially people who fight to keep their job every couple years?
We are instead suggesting that, instead of giving up our liberties to fear, we should maintain our country the way it is, and still fight the battle. Our rights are very important. They must not be infringed upon by the government. If you wish to trade your freedom for safety, there are countries out there that will offer you such a life. Move along, now, because you obviously do not support the true United States of America. As so many are fond of saying, "love this country or leave it." What some don't realize is that this country was founded upon freedom and rights of its citizens. We have challenges and dangers. This has always been the truth for our country. But to cower in fear from such things is not the American way. We should keep our doors open, and not be controlled like children. Instead we should be brave in the face of danger and do our best to be vigilant and report suspicious activity. There is no need to abridge freedoms in order to stop terrorists.
That is the American way. That is how you may, perhaps, die for this country. By supporting this country for the way that it is intended to work. Go out and live free, as this country is meant to be. By abridging freedoms, we move toward anti-American policies, and are in fact just injuring our country and helping our enemies. We MUST maintain our rights and freedoms in order to win the fight! Otherwise, what are we fighting for?
We could stop all the murders in the country if we took away all the weapons and monitored people 24-7, too. Or we could stop car accidents if we had public transportation for every single person here. We could even stop people from stealing if we had people report all their possessions to the government, and inspected their homes regularly to ensure they did not possess anything that they were not reporting. Well you have nothing to hide, right? So why can't we do that? Because that is not the American way. We respect the citizens' rights over the government's.
This is a good point that often gets misrepresented. We have to fight for our freedom, and that includes standing up to people in our government who would take away that freedom for what they would have you believe is "safety." And it's funny, because they turn and call the people opposing that "communists" when giving up your rights in such a way would be considered pretty "communist" to me. Or fascist. They may be on the opposite sides of the spectrum, but in practice they share many ideals.
Life would be pretty boring if the government told you every detail of what you can and cannot do, how to do it, and had control over your life. I prefer living free. Someone referenced Star Trek VI, and that was a good quote to encompass what we should all embrace as Americans.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -directly from the constitution.
That sounds like a clear-cut way of saying that the government shall not be religiously influenced. There have been many Christian influences on our government in the past (and the present) mainly because most of the people who live(d) here were/are Christians. The government is of the people and by the people, so it makes sense that their morals would carry over. However it is important to mention that the true morals of each religion are essentially the same: no killing, no stealing, no lying, no cheating, love thy neighbor. Too many people confuse dogma with scripture; a problem with every major religion.
Or like Fox News transmitting that BS into your head.
Well yes, you can defeat terrorists with the military. It might just take an actual war, not the pussy-footing that we have been doing since WWII.
During WWII we laid waste to entire cities in Germany. Sure, there were people there who were not nazis and they didn't help the military. But these people are not "innocent". Anyone who allows these people to live and thrive in their country/city/whatever are just as guilty as those who oppose us openly. Like when a home in Pakistan was bombed recently, and there was outcry about innocent civilians being killed during dinner. Well, if you don't want to be killed, and want to be considered "innocent," then I suggest not having terrorists over for dinner.
Some people need to remember that war is a way of excusing the killing of lots of people. They complain when bombs kill people who aren't in the military. Well we're not going to go over there with paintball guns and tell them that they can't fight anymore because they've been tagged. War is brutal. War is hell. War is killing people. A lot of people need to wake up to that reality and stop being so PC (a trend that is unrealistic and needs to be snuffed out itself). Let's stop with the so-called "fighting" where we try to eliminate certain people with hands tied behind our backs and blindfolded. You want to control a country as an outside force? The only way to do that is by actually controlling it, each one of their citizens. Read The Prince by Machiavelli. It outlines basically the only ways to hold a territory when you have taken it militarily.
I agree. It doesn't take too much study to figure that out, and the "research" they did on airline policies were what anyone can do: test it out and observe. They routinely observed what goes on during flights, and what security was used.
Plus, it has been noted in analysis of videos and documents that they were planning on toppling the buildings to cause more destruction. They would have known, had they performed structural analysis, that the buildings were created to withstand that type of impact, and would not topple over. Instead they collapsed inward, in somewhat of an interesting display of what an implosion would look like when destroying old buildings (if you have watched videos of these events, you know what I mean).
There is no denying that they can, have, and will use our public libraries and all our resources (flight schools, colleges, etc.) to their advantage. But blocking information from everyone is counter to what this country is all about. Despite what anyone tells us, we CAN defeat terrorists without giving up our rights and freedoms.
I don't know how you can contradict yourself so obviously within two paragraphs and still post it. These "Big Oil" companies depend on science to do business. They pay scientists to find ways to make them more money. That's what businesses do. They do NOT, however, pay scientists to do research on how their product is bad. If you don't believe that burning oil and sending up tons of it into the atmosphere is negatively impacting our environment and our health, then I say it is you who is the dullard. I hate to sound like a hippy here, but corporations have a HUGE track record of paying for misleading scientific results in order to boost profits and fool the public into believing they're nice and only want to do what's right for the public's sake. They're interested in making money. Not helping out you and me. For examples I could point to the aritifical shortages that Exxon imposes on the gasoline market in order to boost the price of gas, adding to their quarterly profits of over $10 billion. Or maybe further in history we can look at the misleading "research" on Marijuana, and the production of 'Reefer Madness'. These were financed by companies who were going to lose money if Marijuana were legalized. It amazes me that people can hear/read/see no proof of something whatsoever and still spout this nonsense that their baseless beliefs are correct.
4) The results must be repeatable by independent labs.This seems to me to be a reason why all labs should be independent (that is, free of direct funding from groups interested in selling said results to the public to their benefit). Why do we have a possibly compromised lab doing work that is just going to be repeated by an independent lab? Why don't we just cut out the middle-man?
It's nice to pretend. I don't think it's that far of a leap to take to draw the conclusion that an anti-oil "documentary" is being rejected by the NTSA because, admittedly, they are afraid of losing funding from a donor, and that the donor who would stop funding them is an oil company.
I don't see where it was said that a survey of every American worker showed that we all complain about such things. So to take one post trying to get information about how to increase productivity through eliminating cubicle farms and the like and turn it into "American workers are whiny" is a pretty far stretch.
Just sounds like you're looking for some excuse to bash Americans. The reasons behind this can be many, but I'm not going to get into this here and start an argument with you about how we're all whiny pusses and we are still more productive than you.
A lot of people in this thread should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep/ for an interesting read. There are a lot of people out there that work on very few hours of sleep, and not all at the same time.
This has been around for a while now, but not as flash memory. Rather, you can use RAM as a hard disk without moving parts, and the cost is substantially less if you can buy the RAM. In fact, there is a product on the market that supports up to 16 GB of RAM in a disk setup for $700 (plus the cost of RAM). That should be much much less than the cost of flash memory. Plus it works just as fast.