Unfortunately what he said would not constitute racism but would earn him praise. It's kind of funny how he says that we can't critiques him but goes off criticizing us. And also, I just wanted to make a point about the University comment. I hope he realizes that the US has the best Universities in the World. Something like 50 of the top 100 are in the US alone, and this was from a study done by a Japanese University (too lazy to look for the link).
Just to add on, if you go and read the discussion page for the linked article, you'll see that there are a lot of complaints about the bias in the article against the US.
Will Saddam get a chance to talk about how he had US support during the war with Iran? I doubt it.
You know, I'm really bloody tired of hearing that BS. Perhaps you should read some history:
Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[27] as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany[28] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).
The source of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10% of the world market during this period) are estimated to be: (check link for the table).
Here is the source. As you can clearly see, the US is in the "Other countries" category, i.e. definitely less then 4% of the total (probably a lot less). And if you read some other articles on Wikipedia (too lazy to look them up now), you'll actually see that the US didn't really provide him with anything except support in the UN and in the media. If you want to blame anyone for the atrocities that took place in the Iran-Iraq war, I suggest you go talk with France, China, German and others (not the USSR since it's gone now).
You know, I'm really bloody tired of hearing that BS. Perhaps you should read some history:
Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[27] as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany[28] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).
The source of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10% of the world market during this period) are estimated to be: (check link for the table).
Here is the source. As you can clearly see, the US is in the "Other countries" category, i.e. definitely less then 4% of the total (probably a lot less).
I have a question for you. Why do you think that the Heartland Institute taking funds from Exxon Mobil and right-wing groups implies that it's a FUD site, while other websites taking funds from left-wing groups are brought forth as fact and no one complains about them?
Hmm perhaps you should have actually read what the sanctions were. The sanctions implemented had to do with military technology and luxury goods. These sanctions should have little to no effect on the people in North Korea.
The earth has had some really hot periods - it hs also had some really cold periods - all BEFORE mankind started to add their marginal extra amount of pollutants into the air.
Just to expand on this point. As you can see, humans really do add a marginal amount. IMHO, the current alarmist attitude serves a good purpose, although it is kind of getting out of hand. The purpose it serves is to try and get clean technologies to be developed and to attempt to change the current wasteful culture into one that conserves more. This is similar to the extremist attitude of organizations like Green Peace. I may not agree with them and their methods, but in the end they serve their purpose (usually getting something that benifits everyone).
Which fusion byproducts were you thinking of? Helium? Not particularly deadly or radioactive. Shielding from the radiation produced during the fusion reaction itself is trivial, and as I said, you don't really get much in the way of dangerous byproducts. d+t fusion gives Helium-4 (perfectly safe), and d+d fusion either gives Helium-3 (again, safe), or tritium. The tritium is radioactive, true. Most of it will likely be consumed in d+t reactions, and whatever is left over (if any) is enormously less problematic that fission byproducts.
While it is true that the by products are a lot less problematic then Fission by products, you forgot the main by product of both Fusion and Fission, neutrons. The main problem with neutrons is that they make anything around it radioactive. This is the main problem when decommissioning a nuclear power station, a lot of the components making up the building become radioactive over time. Therefore, a way to control the neutrons would be needed as well.
The halflife is ~12 years, compared to halflives in the thousands or millions of years for fission byproducts.
What kind of BS is that? Thousands of millions of years? Try tens of thousands of years, and in fact, with Breeder Reactors you'll get that down to a couple hundred if not less.
No, I do not think it is OK. I also do not think torture is OK. Nor using sexual harassment as an interrogation technique.
It's Bush and Cheney saying these things are acceptable. They're the ones splitting hairs over who gets Geneva Convection protection and who doesn't.
It takes two to tango. You can't support an Attorney General who says the Geneva Convention protections for prisoners are "quaint" and then complain when our enemies take the same position.
Hmm our enemies took that position a _long_ time ago. Way before this happened. Second, I would like to mention that no one was being interrogated in Abu Ghraib. It was just a _few_ American soldiers breaking the law and were punished for it. Furthermore, the way that those Iraqis were treated is _significantly_ better then how they are treated in their regular prisons.
While I am against torture, I have a hard time feeling sorry for any of the people in Guantanamo, and I find it amazing that people like you do. These people will kill you if they are given the chance and yet you stand by them. Amazing.
I'm confused, is it now OK to decapitate bodies and hang them off a bridge if they are civilian contractors. That wasn't the only incident to ever happen. Did you forget about the beheadings of other US soldiers?
And a few morons in every bunch? Hmm I remember seeing pictures of hundreds of cheering people as they stung up the bodies on the bridge. tens of even hundreds of thousands of jihadists and most of the Middle-East supporting them is not a few morons.
While it is important for the US to stay on top of everyone with a powerful military, I think you miss the main benefit of so much Defence spending. Do you think you would be sitting there typing on your computer posting that message to slashdot? I'm not sure if it would have eventually come around, but the point stands that a lot of our greatest technological achievements this century came from the US via Military spending.
It seems people like to always pull the "funded by Exxon-Mobil" card for skeptics. I have a question for you, where else is he going to get funding from? From what I've seen, scientist who do not support the idea that global warming is caused by humans have seen their funds dry up (second point). Furthermore, you seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that most university employees (and I have seen this very clear at my university) are very left-wing. In their opinion, someone who opposes the theory is "right-wing" and thus should not get funding, but happily fund those who do support the view. This situation is similar to others I've seen here were people discredit a right-wing news paper and quote a left-wing one as fact.
Uh, you could technically mod any PC game into toplessness. Therefore all PC games should be Mature? Do I smell a console conspiracy?
Personally I don't really see what the big deal with toplessness and/or nudity is. It's a nudity is a perfectly nature aspect of human life. Now, going around and hacking people and seeing peoples heads impaled on sticks, isn't.
I'm pretty shocked to hear the Oblivion was rated Teen (13+) before, and now that there is a way to show breasts it all the sudden becomes Mature (17+)? After playing Oblivion for a while and especially going into some of the Oblivion gates I have no idea why this was rated for 13+ in the first place?
Is it better that people see rotting corpses with their ribs hanging out, go around smashing people with a giant hammer and so forth, or that they, god forbid, see a pair of breasts. People need to realize witnessing violence and committing it in a game is more for mature people than seeing nudity.
Yes right here. I'm using it right now and I just find it makes the game more realistic. When I remove someones shirt they should not have some stupid leather bra under as I believe in the past no one ever used bras. Anyways, enjoy.
While your comment is somewhat valid, you have remember that one must choose the best tool for the job. So, if your going to make a small simple web application then go ahead and use Ruby, Python, PHP, Perl, whatever. However, if your planning on making a massive enterprise level application that's going to have tens of thousands of lines of code then the best tool for this job is Java because you have so many tools at your disposal to assist you (Enterprise Java BEANS for business logic. Struts for your backend and display. Eclipse for an awesome free IDE, etc).
Again, for quick and dirty jobs you use scripting languages. For massive projects, you use Java or.NET.
BTW, you do realise that Java is on almost all occations faster than any scripting language, and using JIT compiling you can increase your Java applications speed far beyond any scripting language.
And as a personal rant I have to say that as a consumer I have never felt hurt by MS's monopoly (my Linux box is doing fine right next to my XP box - thank you very much)
Well as a consumer I can say that I have felt hurt many times by Microsoft's monopoly. Here is why:
Almost complete lack of drivers provided by hardware companies
Try buying a decent computer (and almost no laptops) that comes preinstalled with Linux
Lack of legal codecs on Linux
Almost zero games on Linux (so I have to keep Windows around)
A lot of webpages render really poorly because they are IE only
There are more points but these are off the top of my head. All of these points have to do with Linux having a small market share compared with Windows. While it's disputed why this continues to be, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft's pressure on hardware companies to not include Linux as an option is one of the main barriers for Linux adoption. So yeah, as a consumer I have been hurt many times by Microsoft's monopoly.
You know, I tried several times to read digg.com but I never could due to its terrible rendering on Firefox. The number of diggs graphic covers up the first letter of the article making it hard to read and just look really bad. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.2 in Ubuntu 5.10. Is anyone else having this problem as well?
Hmm I'm not sure. My experience has been _completely_ different. I started using Linux (SuSE) two years ago and hit several snags. I've always had a pleasant experience on linuxquestions.org. Furthermore, when I switched to Ubuntu 8 month ago, I had more problems with it, but the ubuntu forums have been even more helpful than linuxquestions.org with people responding quickly and having all the information that you need. The worst thing that has happened to me on these forums was people not answering my questions, at which point I would either post somewhere else or do more searching online.
I think it's worth noticing that there are more than 2 sides to the climate change debate - and there's more than one debate. But if we frame the debate as "if we reduce Greenhouse pollution, will the climate remain more stable than if we don't", there are 2 sides. One side has most of the experts, saying "yes". The other side has some experts, and most of the stakeholders in the factors most of the experts say contribute to the change.
This is actually not true. You have the number of experts reversed. The side that says that humans have had a significant impact is in the minority. What you should really be saying is, the side that says that humans have a significant impact get the most media attention and thus it _seems_ as if the majority think so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the alarmist attitude right now because it actually gets stuff done. While I don't think that switching to clean technologies or lower emissions will actually prevent the globe from warming because it is a natural cycle, I do think that it is more important for us to clean our air up so people can be healthier. What I don't like about this alarmist attitude is that it makes countries like the US and Australia that rely heavily on coal, look bad when they don't want to ruin their economy because of the alarmists.
Slashdot Mirror
By "fair" you mean "Democrates winning" right?
Unfortunately what he said would not constitute racism but would earn him praise. It's kind of funny how he says that we can't critiques him but goes off criticizing us. And also, I just wanted to make a point about the University comment. I hope he realizes that the US has the best Universities in the World. Something like 50 of the top 100 are in the US alone, and this was from a study done by a Japanese University (too lazy to look for the link).
Just to add on, if you go and read the discussion page for the linked article, you'll see that there are a lot of complaints about the bias in the article against the US.
You know, I'm really bloody tired of hearing that BS. Perhaps you should read some history:
Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[27] as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany[28] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).
The source of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10% of the world market during this period) are estimated to be: (check link for the table).
Here is the source. As you can clearly see, the US is in the "Other countries" category, i.e. definitely less then 4% of the total (probably a lot less). And if you read some other articles on Wikipedia (too lazy to look them up now), you'll actually see that the US didn't really provide him with anything except support in the UN and in the media. If you want to blame anyone for the atrocities that took place in the Iran-Iraq war, I suggest you go talk with France, China, German and others (not the USSR since it's gone now).
Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[27] as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany[28] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Spain (Explosivos Alaveses), Canada, Italy and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities (see below).
The source of Iraqi arms purchases between 1970 and 1990 (10% of the world market during this period) are estimated to be: (check link for the table).
Here is the source. As you can clearly see, the US is in the "Other countries" category, i.e. definitely less then 4% of the total (probably a lot less).
Hold on, I'm confused. Do you and the rest of the people who commented here believe that Saddam is innocent and a nice man? WTF is wrong with you?!
Yeah you need be Nuclear scientist
I have a question for you. Why do you think that the Heartland Institute taking funds from Exxon Mobil and right-wing groups implies that it's a FUD site, while other websites taking funds from left-wing groups are brought forth as fact and no one complains about them?
Hmm perhaps you should have actually read what the sanctions were. The sanctions implemented had to do with military technology and luxury goods. These sanctions should have little to no effect on the people in North Korea.
Just to expand on this point. As you can see, humans really do add a marginal amount. IMHO, the current alarmist attitude serves a good purpose, although it is kind of getting out of hand. The purpose it serves is to try and get clean technologies to be developed and to attempt to change the current wasteful culture into one that conserves more. This is similar to the extremist attitude of organizations like Green Peace. I may not agree with them and their methods, but in the end they serve their purpose (usually getting something that benifits everyone).
While it is true that the by products are a lot less problematic then Fission by products, you forgot the main by product of both Fusion and Fission, neutrons. The main problem with neutrons is that they make anything around it radioactive. This is the main problem when decommissioning a nuclear power station, a lot of the components making up the building become radioactive over time. Therefore, a way to control the neutrons would be needed as well.
What kind of BS is that? Thousands of millions of years? Try tens of thousands of years, and in fact, with Breeder Reactors you'll get that down to a couple hundred if not less.
Hmm our enemies took that position a _long_ time ago. Way before this happened. Second, I would like to mention that no one was being interrogated in Abu Ghraib. It was just a _few_ American soldiers breaking the law and were punished for it. Furthermore, the way that those Iraqis were treated is _significantly_ better then how they are treated in their regular prisons.
While I am against torture, I have a hard time feeling sorry for any of the people in Guantanamo, and I find it amazing that people like you do. These people will kill you if they are given the chance and yet you stand by them. Amazing.And a few morons in every bunch? Hmm I remember seeing pictures of hundreds of cheering people as they stung up the bodies on the bridge. tens of even hundreds of thousands of jihadists and most of the Middle-East supporting them is not a few morons.
While it is important for the US to stay on top of everyone with a powerful military, I think you miss the main benefit of so much Defence spending. Do you think you would be sitting there typing on your computer posting that message to slashdot? I'm not sure if it would have eventually come around, but the point stands that a lot of our greatest technological achievements this century came from the US via Military spending.
It seems people like to always pull the "funded by Exxon-Mobil" card for skeptics. I have a question for you, where else is he going to get funding from? From what I've seen, scientist who do not support the idea that global warming is caused by humans have seen their funds dry up (second point). Furthermore, you seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that most university employees (and I have seen this very clear at my university) are very left-wing. In their opinion, someone who opposes the theory is "right-wing" and thus should not get funding, but happily fund those who do support the view. This situation is similar to others I've seen here were people discredit a right-wing news paper and quote a left-wing one as fact.
Dvorak, is that you?
Personally I don't really see what the big deal with toplessness and/or nudity is. It's a nudity is a perfectly nature aspect of human life. Now, going around and hacking people and seeing peoples heads impaled on sticks, isn't.
I'm pretty shocked to hear the Oblivion was rated Teen (13+) before, and now that there is a way to show breasts it all the sudden becomes Mature (17+)? After playing Oblivion for a while and especially going into some of the Oblivion gates I have no idea why this was rated for 13+ in the first place?
Is it better that people see rotting corpses with their ribs hanging out, go around smashing people with a giant hammer and so forth, or that they, god forbid, see a pair of breasts. People need to realize witnessing violence and committing it in a game is more for mature people than seeing nudity.
Yes right here. I'm using it right now and I just find it makes the game more realistic. When I remove someones shirt they should not have some stupid leather bra under as I believe in the past no one ever used bras. Anyways, enjoy.
Again, for quick and dirty jobs you use scripting languages. For massive projects, you use Java or .NET.
BTW, you do realise that Java is on almost all occations faster than any scripting language, and using JIT compiling you can increase your Java applications speed far beyond any scripting language.
Well as a consumer I can say that I have felt hurt many times by Microsoft's monopoly. Here is why:
There are more points but these are off the top of my head. All of these points have to do with Linux having a small market share compared with Windows. While it's disputed why this continues to be, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft's pressure on hardware companies to not include Linux as an option is one of the main barriers for Linux adoption. So yeah, as a consumer I have been hurt many times by Microsoft's monopoly.
You know, I tried several times to read digg.com but I never could due to its terrible rendering on Firefox. The number of diggs graphic covers up the first letter of the article making it hard to read and just look really bad. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.2 in Ubuntu 5.10. Is anyone else having this problem as well?
Hey, who are you calling a fat computer programmer... oh wait...
I think...
Hmm I'm not sure. My experience has been _completely_ different. I started using Linux (SuSE) two years ago and hit several snags. I've always had a pleasant experience on linuxquestions.org. Furthermore, when I switched to Ubuntu 8 month ago, I had more problems with it, but the ubuntu forums have been even more helpful than linuxquestions.org with people responding quickly and having all the information that you need. The worst thing that has happened to me on these forums was people not answering my questions, at which point I would either post somewhere else or do more searching online.
This is actually not true. You have the number of experts reversed. The side that says that humans have had a significant impact is in the minority. What you should really be saying is, the side that says that humans have a significant impact get the most media attention and thus it _seems_ as if the majority think so.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the alarmist attitude right now because it actually gets stuff done. While I don't think that switching to clean technologies or lower emissions will actually prevent the globe from warming because it is a natural cycle, I do think that it is more important for us to clean our air up so people can be healthier. What I don't like about this alarmist attitude is that it makes countries like the US and Australia that rely heavily on coal, look bad when they don't want to ruin their economy because of the alarmists.