when I play a 3D game, say UT2K3 or other, on my laptop with 14" screen I get major motion sickness. When I play on 17" or higher I don't. Not sure if that is a specific side effect from their study, as it isn't very clear from the article.
That's kind of funny.
My brother got motion sickness from playing descent on a 20" monitor, but didn't get it as bad on a smaller one. He thought it was since the bigger screen took up a larger chunk of his field of vision that the immersion into the 3d world took over.
Strange that your experience was the opposite.
He gets sick on boats and can't read in a car either though.
And just to document the last time I saw this story, it was four days ago (perhaps an improvement on the 2-hour dupe of an Apple story last week). The source in that case (Linuxdevices.com) seemed a more detailed story:
I started reading this, got all agitated and thought, "No way, I haven't seen this before.", was about to follow the link to make sure it was accurate and thought, "Damn, what's wrong with me.";-)
I think the outrage over genetically modified foods is reactionary and ungrounded.
Some is, some isn't
A monoculture *could* lead to a single plant disease wiping out the entire crop nationwide or perhaps even world wide. This is a possibility, hence a valid concern.
Also, there is the case where a farmer's non-GM crops got cross pollinated with a neighboring farmers GM crops. The courts ruled that the one farmer had to pay for the GM seeds he didn't want. I'd rather no go into the legality of this, but in a situation like this, if the one farmer grew those crops specifically to sell to the non-GM market then now he's screwed.
So, some of the outrage may well be ungrounded, but not all of it.
If someone from MS is giving me 8 CD's full of software & telling me that I can use it for free, I'm going to keep my big mouth shut except to say thank you. Why bother questioning the freaking license. If there was a problem, believe me, MS would not be handing out discs.
There isn't a problem now, but what if, for whatever reason, they decided they didn't like you found their software on your computer asked for your license which you couldn't produce? You would be screwed. Is this likely? I very seriously doubt it. Is it possible? Yes.
Another possibility. MS denies that the rep had the authority to do such a thing. You are guilty of accepting stolen (pirated?) goods. I assume this was actually a MS sponsored thing, so this scenario is even less likely than the previous one, but again possible. That is the issue here.
Is it worth being worried about? Most likely not, but the legal system seems to run largely on these tiny nit pics.
I'm asking you again, it's a simple question: since you allege that your rights are being taken away, tell us one thing you had a right to do on September 10, 2001, which you claim you do not have a right to do now. Well?
You and I can both be arrested with no charges, no trial or access to a lawyer on the mere unsubstantiated allegation that we are somehow linked to terrorism. Why is it that you will fight to maintain your right to believe anything you are told by the news, but you won't put a scrap of effort into questioning those things. I don't think you should believe everything I tell you unquestioningly, but by the same reasoning you should be questioning the entirely unsupported claims of your government which has done everything it can to prevent you from getting the information you need to actually investigate their statements. I have provided facts you have provided nothing.
Those who commit acts of war against the United States have always been subject to military jurisdiction.
What act of war have the thousands of people who have been disappeared commited?
You, I and everybody else in the world is now subject to being taken away without charges and without recourse to the law. Are you honestly unaware that this is happening right now?
I'm asking you again, it's a simple question: since you allege that your rights are being taken away, tell us one thing you had a right to do on September 10, 2001, which you claim you do not have a right to do now. Well?
The mere allegation that I am in any way associated with terrorists allows the governemnt to take me away without any due process whatsoever. I know at least one person through my father in law to whom this has happened. There was the article about the Intel guy. There are articles about the thousands who were tricked into showing up at INS centers and have now essentially vanished off of the face of the earth. Look it up. Find a single scrap of evidence to contradict this.
But then you go and give yourself away: you link to a black-helicopter theory site alleging that Bush and `the Israelis' carried out the September 11 attacks -- yet you are too ashamed to repeat this claim for yourself. Tell us, Darby, is this what you're claiming?
Again with the "black-helicopter" bullshit. Is it just anything you are afraid to believe that you classify as conspiracy? Here is the relevant quote from that site:
"In August 2001, FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned from his post over George W. Bush's policy on terrorism and Osama bin Laden. Specifically, O'Neill's department was told to "back off" their bin Laden and Al Queda investigations while the Bush administration negotiated with the Taliban. "
Of course nothing on the site that I remember mentioned Bush or Israel planning the assaults. They do provide overwhelming evidence that Bush actively interfered with the investigation that would have prevented it. Again, you don't offwer anything to refute the points. You just cry "black Helicopter" and bury your head in the sand.
This is an absolutely true fact that this was his stated reason for resigning. This was reported by all of the major media outlets when it happened. Do you have anything to counter what he said?
This wasn't even mentioned by the same media outlets who reported it after the attacks. This is quite obviously an important fact given Bush's rabid refusal to investigate the events until the families of the victims brought a huge lawsuit.
And finally, your `evidence' for your final claim is to post to another post of you saying the same thing? Ha!
No, it was a link pointing out that you were talking about something completely different than I was. You have still failed to address it. You look like an idiot to anybody who has done their homework since the company who was hired to purge the voter rolls has admitted what they did, that it did remove thousands of people who it shouldn't
Now you allege, with no examples, that the constitution is being violated. If you believe this, and you seem to, provide us an example of any provision of the Constitution which is being violated.
Actually I responded to this point in a different response to you, but I'll repoeat it here:
Sorry, I thought you might actually have been following current events. The Patriot act extends these practices and more to each and every person in the world American and non-American. You don't have to be a terrorist to be taken away without a charge and with absolutely no recourse to the law allowed. You just have to be called a terrorist. I assume you saw the article about the Intel employee being disappeared? I was actually surprised to see that posted here because that was one person. There are thousands of people (in addition to the ones in Cuba) locked away somewhere for no crime, no known charges, and no recourse to the law. My Father in law has a friend who works for Oracle who has been disappeared. It has been 6 months and his wife has been totally unable to even find out if he is still alive, where he is, if he will ever be charged with anything, or if he has already been executed without a trial. So you are saying that you would be quite happy if this were you or one of your friends or family? You would be better off if I were to come into your home, kidnap you and lock you in my basement myself because at least you would have some expectation that I would be caught and punished. That isn't the case for thousdands of people right here right now.
I counter this with a simple point:
If you believe that you have lost liberties in the wake of September 11, please point to even a single right which they believe they had on September 10, 2001, but do not have now. A single one. Well?
See the above. I have lost the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to a fair trial. The right to access to a lawyer. The right to confront my accusers and provide evidence for my defense.
Now do you actually have anything worthwhile to say or are you merely shilling for the noe-fascist traitors who have taken over our country?
Well? Repetition is not reasoning. Defend your position, don't repeat it.
I'm amazed at your audacity to spout crap like this when you are blindly repeating undefended lies which we are being fed.
Independently of the incoherence of your position, I'd like to speak to your black-helicopter accusations.
Very good Mr. Orwell. Always make it sound like people are paranoid "conspiracy nuts". This is much easier than addressing the points.
You allege that USA PATRIOT has `taken away your rights', yet you fail to explain how a bill which merely extended to organized terrorism practices which had already been declared constitutional sixty years earlier when JFK extended them to organized crime can be said to `take away' your rights.
Sorry, I thought you might actually have been following current events. The Patriot act extends these practices and more to each and every person in the world American and non-American. You don't have to be a terrorist to be taken away without a charge and with absolutely no recourse to the law allowed. You just have to be called a terrorist. I assume you saw the article about the Intel employee being disappeared? I was actually surprised to see that posted here because that was one person. There are thousands of people (in addition to the ones in Cuba) locked away somewhere for no crime, no known charges, and no recourse to the law. My Father in law has a friend who works for Oracle who has been disappeared. It has been 6 months and his wife has been totally unable to even find out if he is still alive, where he is, if he will ever be charged with anything, or if he has already been executed without a trial. So you are saying that you would be quite happy if this were you or one of your friends or family? You would be better off if I were to come into your home, kidnap you and lock you in my basement myself because at least you would have some expectation that I would be caught and punished. That isn't the case for thousdands of people right here right now.
I counter this with a simple point:
If you believe that you have lost liberties in the wake of September 11, please point to even a single right which they believe they had on September 10, 2001, but do not have now. A single one. Well?
See the above. I have lost the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to a fair trial. The right to access to a lawyer. The right to confront my accusers and provide evidence for my defense.
You make an odd eliptical claim about Bush and the Saudis, with no evidence. Rather than beat around the bush (pun intended), tell us what you are alleging, and show us some evidence. Or are you so ashamed of your own accusations that you are unwilling to make them openly
The statement of fact was neither odd nor elliptical. Do you know who John O'Neill was? If not why not? It is your most fundamental and important responsibility to know these things. Your primary job as a citizen is to be informed. This takes precedence over everything else. With freedom comes responsibility. You have rejected your responsibility but you still want the benefits? I resent having to shoulder your burdens because you are to frightened or lazy to do it yourself, but I won't run away from it.
And last, you allege that the election in Florida was stolen. This may have seemed like a cute accusation to make late in the year 2000, but two and a half years after dozens of independent media institutions -- including those like the New York Times and the Washington Post which quite openly believed Gore had won -- finished their own recounts and confirmed that by any standard they applied, Bush won by as many or more votes than the certified amount, you just make yourself look silly by bringing such a claim
Here is a link to a previous posting I made in response to somebody who said more or less the same thing you did. You make yourself look like you are afraid to address the current issue by shifting it to something only tangentially related. There was a fiasco on elec
With due respect, how many dead people have you ever seen speak freely, worship freely, publish freely, or exercise any of the other basic rights which we hold dear? Is that really your argument?
How many free societies have you ever seen formed by people being more concerned about not getting hurt than about doing what is right? As soon as some threat presents itself run and hide because your life is more important than my rights and the rights of everybody else in the world? Is that your argument?
Were it the case that any of this fascist legislation recently enacted had a chance of helping against terrorists you might have a very weak cowardly basis for an argument, but it doesn't. All it does is promote a culture of fear, provide the government with unlimited power over the lives of everybody and actively prevent the citizenry from doing the most important job any citizen of a free society could possibly have: watching their government.
Are you really saying `they're not trying to take our rights away, they're trying to kill us, so that's okay'?
Of course not as you well know. I am saying that there are things worse than death. If you don't believe this than I am sad that so many people who did believe this have died to provide a society where we have an opportunity to live our lives free but people like you are willing to throw it away because they are too afraid to stand up and fight for freedom. Being afraid is not what makes someone a coward. Not facing those fears to do what is right is what makes a coward.
This is why in addition to providing a specific and limited definition of the powers of government, the constitution also details the responsibilities of government, including providing for the common defense.
This is true, but this isn't what this fascist anti-American legislation does. That is the point.
It is my humble opinion that the US Constitution strikes an excellent balance between these two needs.
This is where you completely contradict yourself. The constitution specifically forbids what is being done. The balance was struck, but Patriot, Homeland security etc. rips the constitution to shreds destroying this balance.
You don't keep all of your paycheck so that the nation can afford an army to stop other entities from coming here and taking your rights.
I don't have a problem paying for a military to serve this purpose. This isn't what the military is currently being used for. Or are you one of those deluded fools who actually swallowed the propaganda and now believe it was Iraq who did the September 11 attacks? If we were invading Saudi Arabia, at least that would be arguable since they provided much of the funding and most of the attackers.
But that's not what you're saying -- you're saying `give me liberty, even if it means death for a bunch of other people'.
No. Not at all.
I'm saying that if *you* want to remove my fundamental liberties because *you* are afraid, then you are a coward. Liberty isn't something that you magically have although that seems to be the common attitude in this country. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", to throw out another quote. If you are too afraid to be vigilant about the very real threats posed *by our own government* then you are a traitor to every principle this country claims to stand for.
In short, you're arguing that as long as the government doesn't take something you consider your `liberty' away, you're perfectly fine with them abrogating their responsibility -- which is just as much a part of the contitution as your liberty is -- to prevent other people coming here and taking even more basic liberties away.
Again, not at all. This isn't even remotely deducible from what I said.
Nobody is trying to come here and take out liberties away. People did blow up some buildings and kill some of our people. Part of their reason was almost certainly to make us afraid and to make us feel some of the pain we have made them and theirs feel. But we have responded by giving them all of that and much more. The patriot act was absolutely an unconditional surrender to terrorism.
That is cowardice.
Ignoring the fact that the current administration has proved absolutely that they are the primary enemies of freedom in America (Fact: Bush ordered the FBI off of the Saudis before the attack. Fact: Bush was only elected because Jeb robbed citizens of their right to vote) makes you a traitor or a fool.
If you attempt to counter either of the above *facts* bring some facts. When you look around for some you might be surprised to realise that there aren't any at all.
They spoke Clear Channel said "You will be punished for that and nobody will hear your music on the *public* airwaves".
Yes, I know that Clear Channel doesn't control all radio stations, but their power to censor regardless of what the general public thinks is incredible. There is way too much power concentrated in one place for there to be such a thing as "free speech" when one person can stop your words from getting out.
Look, either you trust your media outlet, or you don't. If you trust them, it's OK to retouch meaningless pictures with a bit of photoshop. If you don't, photo doctoring doesn't make a bit of a difference.
Of course the simple fact is that if you trust any mass media outlet then you are a fool. They are a business, which means that they produce a good or service and then give it to somebody else in exchange for something else, usually money. Most people seem to think that news or information or something like that is their product, but it's not. Nobody pays for it, so it can't be. Their product is you and I. More specifically our eyeballs, attention, whatever. Their customers are often the people who they are supposed to be investigating (filthy word in modern American media). This is a clear conflict of interest. If they can make more money by lying and manipulating the public, then they are obligated by law to do so assuming that they are part of a publically owned corporation. Therefore, placing any trust at all in these jackals is the height of stupidity.
Here's a great example.
About 3 weeks before the world trade center attacks John O'Neill resigned his position as Deputy Director of the FBI in protest against Bush for interfering with their investigations into terrorism due to his oil connections. He was specifically banned from investigating the Saudis' funneling of money to the terrorists among other things. This was widely reported at the time since it was "newsworthy", but not particularly critical at the time. Three weeks later this fact became the single most important piece of information in the entire world yet this wasn't even mentioned again.
Everybody who gets any camera time at all at a news outlet in this country is a traitor since they haven't said anything. So what if they would get fired. It's a little thing called integrity which has been extremely rare in this country for a long time.
You seem to be implying that this would be relevant. How will following a book of ethics increase profits for the shareholders unless everybody does it?
Once the anti-war protesters provide a solution and have a reasonable point, maybe I'll listen.
Once the anti-American freedom hating supporters of the traitor Bush can come up with a scrap of evidence that there was a reason to go in other than deflecting us from domestic issues pigs will fly down to hell to ice skate.
The only success of gene therapy to date has been a French study in which 9 children with SCID (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency) were succesfully treated with gene therapy. Even this study has been halted for now because two of the patients have developed leukemia-like symptoms.
I don't know much about the details of gene therapy, but seven out of nine were ok? What is the success rate for SCID otherwise?
Interestingly, a labour law professor of mine believes that the logical development of capitalism is that the big firms like MS will start buying all the smaller firms as they find smaller and smaller returns in their industry until we end up with just a few Uber-Corporations which ultimately end up owning everything.
I honestly don't intend you any offense, but.... You needed a professor to tell you this?
This is the inherent flaw in capitalism.
It's actually worse than that though. With no restrictions whatsoever the end result of capitalism is one company which everybody works for for room and board.
A shitty room and barely edible board.
There will be a few people who live above this standard, but *exactly* enough people (with enough ((uneducated)) of them armed) to maximize the wealth of the one person on top.
Nobody has proposed (widely enough that I've heard of it) another system which is inherently better, but the flaws inherent in it were obvious a hundred years ago.
The key is to regulate the market enough to keep it "free enough" while maintaining a completly free voting system by an educated populace.
America has utterly failed at this. See the MS anti-trust case and the Bush raped election.
After Microsoft took over, the number of spam messages I got skyrocketted (YMMV),
Not to defend MS (check my posting history;-), but check your spam quantity jump at any email address you have had since before then. I'll make an uninvestigated guess that it's at least close.
The rest of your points I can't address since I ditched my hotmail account when MS bought them
Slashdot Mirror
It was not understood for a long time how women could test out to be as intelligent as men even though we have smaller brains.
No joke, we men are also better designed for receiving repeated blows to the head with blunt objects.
More redundancy etc.
when I play a 3D game, say UT2K3 or other, on my laptop with 14" screen I get major motion sickness. When I play on 17" or higher I don't. Not sure if that is a specific side effect from their study, as it isn't very clear from the article.
That's kind of funny.
My brother got motion sickness from playing descent on a 20" monitor, but didn't get it as bad on a smaller one. He thought it was since the bigger screen took up a larger chunk of his field of vision that the immersion into the 3d world took over.
Strange that your experience was the opposite.
He gets sick on boats and can't read in a car either though.
And just to document the last time I saw this story, it was four days ago (perhaps an improvement on the 2-hour dupe of an Apple story last week). The source in that case (Linuxdevices.com) seemed a more detailed story:
;-)
I started reading this, got all agitated and thought, "No way, I haven't seen this before.", was about to follow the link to make sure it was accurate and thought, "Damn, what's wrong with me."
There can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob
This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure if you are making a point about something currently in place.
Are there things allowed to mobs but forbidden to individuals?
I think the outrage over genetically modified foods is reactionary and ungrounded.
Some is, some isn't
A monoculture *could* lead to a single plant disease wiping out the entire crop nationwide or perhaps even world wide.
This is a possibility, hence a valid concern.
Also, there is the case where a farmer's non-GM crops got cross pollinated with a neighboring farmers GM crops. The courts ruled that the one farmer had to pay for the GM seeds he didn't want. I'd rather no go into the legality of this, but in a situation like this, if the one farmer grew those crops specifically to sell to the non-GM market then now he's screwed.
So, some of the outrage may well be ungrounded, but not all of it.
If someone from MS is giving me 8 CD's full of software & telling me that I can use it for free, I'm going to keep my big mouth shut except to say thank you. Why bother questioning the freaking license. If there was a problem, believe me, MS would not be handing out discs.
There isn't a problem now, but what if, for whatever reason, they decided they didn't like you found their software on your computer asked for your license which you couldn't produce?
You would be screwed.
Is this likely? I very seriously doubt it.
Is it possible? Yes.
Another possibility. MS denies that the rep had the authority to do such a thing. You are guilty of accepting stolen (pirated?) goods.
I assume this was actually a MS sponsored thing, so this scenario is even less likely than the previous one, but again possible.
That is the issue here.
Is it worth being worried about? Most likely not, but the legal system seems to run largely on these tiny nit pics.
I'm asking you again, it's a simple question: since you allege that your rights are being taken away, tell us one thing you had a right to do on September 10, 2001, which you claim you do not have a right to do now. Well?
You and I can both be arrested with no charges, no trial or access to a lawyer on the mere unsubstantiated allegation that we are somehow linked to terrorism.
Why is it that you will fight to maintain your right to believe anything you are told by the news, but you won't put a scrap of effort into questioning those things. I don't think you should believe everything I tell you unquestioningly, but by the same reasoning you should be questioning the entirely unsupported claims of your government which has done everything it can to prevent you from getting the information you need to actually investigate their statements. I have provided facts you have provided nothing.
Those who commit acts of war against the United States have always been subject to military jurisdiction.
What act of war have the thousands of people who have been disappeared commited?
You, I and everybody else in the world is now subject to being taken away without charges and without recourse to the law. Are you honestly unaware that this is happening right now?
I'm asking you again, it's a simple question: since you allege that your rights are being taken away, tell us one thing you had a right to do on September 10, 2001, which you claim you do not have a right to do now. Well?
The mere allegation that I am in any way associated with terrorists allows the governemnt to take me away without any due process whatsoever. I know at least one person through my father in law to whom this has happened.
There was the article about the Intel guy.
There are articles about the thousands who were tricked into showing up at INS centers and have now essentially vanished off of the face of the earth. Look it up. Find a single scrap of evidence to contradict this.
But then you go and give yourself away: you link to a black-helicopter theory site alleging that Bush and `the Israelis' carried out the September 11 attacks -- yet you are too ashamed to repeat this claim for yourself. Tell us, Darby, is this what you're claiming?
Again with the "black-helicopter" bullshit. Is it just anything you are afraid to believe that you classify as conspiracy? Here is the relevant quote from that site:
"In August 2001, FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned from his post over George W. Bush's policy on terrorism and Osama bin Laden. Specifically, O'Neill's department was told to "back off" their bin Laden and Al Queda investigations while the Bush administration negotiated with the Taliban. "
Of course nothing on the site that I remember mentioned Bush or Israel planning the assaults. They do provide overwhelming evidence that Bush actively interfered with the investigation that would have prevented it. Again, you don't offwer anything to refute the points.
You just cry "black Helicopter" and bury your head in the sand.
This is an absolutely true fact that this was his stated reason for resigning. This was reported by all of the major media outlets when it happened. Do you have anything to counter what he said?
This wasn't even mentioned by the same media outlets who reported it after the attacks. This is quite obviously an important fact given Bush's rabid refusal to investigate the events until the families of the victims brought a huge lawsuit.
And finally, your `evidence' for your final claim is to post to another post of you saying the same thing? Ha!
No, it was a link pointing out that you were talking about something completely different than I was. You have still failed to address it.
You look like an idiot to anybody who has done their homework since the company who was hired to purge the voter rolls has admitted what they did, that it did remove thousands of people who it shouldn't
Now you allege, with no examples, that the constitution is being violated. If you believe this, and you seem to, provide us an example of any provision of the Constitution which is being violated.
Actually I responded to this point in a different response to you, but I'll repoeat it here:
Sorry, I thought you might actually have been following current events. The Patriot act extends these practices and more to each and every person in the world American and non-American. You don't have to be a terrorist to be taken away without a charge and with absolutely no recourse to the law allowed. You just have to be called a terrorist. I assume you saw the article about the Intel employee being disappeared? I was actually surprised to see that posted here because that was one person. There are thousands of people (in addition to the ones in Cuba) locked away somewhere for no crime, no known charges, and no recourse to the law. My Father in law has a friend who works for Oracle who has been disappeared. It has been 6 months and his wife has been totally unable to even find out if he is still alive, where he is, if he will ever be charged with anything, or if he has already been executed without a trial.
So you are saying that you would be quite happy if this were you or one of your friends or family?
You would be better off if I were to come into your home, kidnap you and lock you in my basement myself because at least you would have some expectation that I would be caught and punished.
That isn't the case for thousdands of people right here right now.
I counter this with a simple point:
If you believe that you have lost liberties in the wake of September 11, please point to even a single right which they believe they had on September 10, 2001, but do not have now. A single one. Well?
See the above. I have lost the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to a fair trial. The right to access to a lawyer. The right to confront my accusers and provide evidence for my defense.
Now do you actually have anything worthwhile to say or are you merely shilling for the noe-fascist traitors who have taken over our country?
Well? Repetition is not reasoning. Defend your position, don't repeat it.
I'm amazed at your audacity to spout crap like this when you are blindly repeating undefended lies which we are being fed.
Independently of the incoherence of your position, I'd like to speak to your black-helicopter accusations.
Very good Mr. Orwell. Always make it sound like people are paranoid "conspiracy nuts". This is much easier than addressing the points.
You allege that USA PATRIOT has `taken away your rights', yet you fail to explain how a bill which merely extended to organized terrorism practices which had already been declared constitutional sixty years earlier when JFK extended them to organized crime can be said to `take away' your rights.
Sorry, I thought you might actually have been following current events. The Patriot act extends these practices and more to each and every person in the world American and non-American. You don't have to be a terrorist to be taken away without a charge and with absolutely no recourse to the law allowed. You just have to be called a terrorist. I assume you saw the article about the Intel employee being disappeared? I was actually surprised to see that posted here because that was one person. There are thousands of people (in addition to the ones in Cuba) locked away somewhere for no crime, no known charges, and no recourse to the law. My Father in law has a friend who works for Oracle who has been disappeared. It has been 6 months and his wife has been totally unable to even find out if he is still alive, where he is, if he will ever be charged with anything, or if he has already been executed without a trial.
So you are saying that you would be quite happy if this were you or one of your friends or family?
You would be better off if I were to come into your home, kidnap you and lock you in my basement myself because at least you would have some expectation that I would be caught and punished.
That isn't the case for thousdands of people right here right now.
I counter this with a simple point:
If you believe that you have lost liberties in the wake of September 11, please point to even a single right which they believe they had on September 10, 2001, but do not have now. A single one. Well?
See the above. I have lost the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to a fair trial. The right to access to a lawyer. The right to confront my accusers and provide evidence for my defense.
You make an odd eliptical claim about Bush and the Saudis, with no evidence. Rather than beat around the bush (pun intended), tell us what you are alleging, and show us some evidence. Or are you so ashamed of your own accusations that you are unwilling to make them openly
The statement of fact was neither odd nor elliptical. Do you know who John O'Neill was?
If not why not? It is your most fundamental and important responsibility to know these things. Your primary job as a citizen is to be informed. This takes precedence over everything else. With freedom comes responsibility. You have rejected your responsibility but you still want the benefits? I resent having to shoulder your burdens because you are to frightened or lazy to do it yourself, but I won't run away from it.
And last, you allege that the election in Florida was stolen. This may have seemed like a cute accusation to make late in the year 2000, but two and a half years after dozens of independent media institutions -- including those like the New York Times and the Washington Post which quite openly believed Gore had won -- finished their own recounts and confirmed that by any standard they applied, Bush won by as many or more votes than the certified amount, you just make yourself look silly by bringing such a claim
Here is a link to a previous posting I made in response to somebody who said more or less the same thing you did. You make yourself look like you are afraid to address the current issue by shifting it to something only tangentially related.
There was a fiasco on elec
With due respect, how many dead people have you ever seen speak freely, worship freely, publish freely, or exercise any of the other basic rights which we hold dear? Is that really your argument?
How many free societies have you ever seen formed by people being more concerned about not getting hurt than about doing what is right? As soon as some threat presents itself run and hide because your life is more important than my rights and the rights of everybody else in the world? Is that your argument?
Were it the case that any of this fascist legislation recently enacted had a chance of helping against terrorists you might have a very weak cowardly basis for an argument, but it doesn't. All it does is promote a culture of fear, provide the government with unlimited power over the lives of everybody and actively prevent the citizenry from doing the most important job any citizen of a free society could possibly have: watching their government.
Are you really saying `they're not trying to take our rights away, they're trying to kill us, so that's okay'?
Of course not as you well know.
I am saying that there are things worse than death. If you don't believe this than I am sad that so many people who did believe this have died to provide a society where we have an opportunity to live our lives free but people like you are willing to throw it away because they are too afraid to stand up and fight for freedom.
Being afraid is not what makes someone a coward. Not facing those fears to do what is right is what makes a coward.
This is why in addition to providing a specific and limited definition of the powers of government, the constitution also details the responsibilities of government, including providing for the common defense.
This is true, but this isn't what this fascist anti-American legislation does. That is the point.
It is my humble opinion that the US Constitution strikes an excellent balance between these two needs.
This is where you completely contradict yourself.
The constitution specifically forbids what is being done. The balance was struck, but Patriot, Homeland security etc. rips the constitution to shreds destroying this balance.
You don't keep all of your paycheck so that the nation can afford an army to stop other entities from coming here and taking your rights.
I don't have a problem paying for a military to serve this purpose. This isn't what the military is currently being used for. Or are you one of those deluded fools who actually swallowed the propaganda and now believe it was Iraq who did the September 11 attacks?
If we were invading Saudi Arabia, at least that would be arguable since they provided much of the funding and most of the attackers.
But that's not what you're saying -- you're saying `give me liberty, even if it means death for a bunch of other people'.
No. Not at all.
I'm saying that if *you* want to remove my fundamental liberties because *you* are afraid, then you are a coward.
Liberty isn't something that you magically have although that seems to be the common attitude in this country. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", to throw out another quote.
If you are too afraid to be vigilant about the very real threats posed *by our own government* then you are a traitor to every principle this country claims to stand for.
In short, you're arguing that as long as the government doesn't take something you consider your `liberty' away, you're perfectly fine with them abrogating their responsibility -- which is just as much a part of the contitution as your liberty is -- to prevent other people coming here and taking even more basic liberties away.
Again, not at all. This isn't even remotely deducible from what I said.
Nobody is trying to come here and take out liberties away. People did blow up some buildings and kill some of our people. Part of their reason was almost certainly to make us afraid and to make us feel some of the pain we have made them and theirs feel. But we have responded by giving them all of that and much more. The patriot act was absolutely an unconditional surrender to terrorism.
That is cowardice.
Ignoring the fact that the current administration has proved absolutely that they are the primary enemies of freedom in America (Fact: Bush ordered the FBI off of the Saudis before the attack. Fact: Bush was only elected because Jeb robbed citizens of their right to vote) makes you a traitor or a fool.
If you attempt to counter either of the above *facts* bring some facts. When you look around for some you might be surprised to realise that there aren't any at all.
They spoke, others spoke back.
No.
They spoke Clear Channel said "You will be punished for that and nobody will hear your music on the *public* airwaves".
Yes, I know that Clear Channel doesn't control all radio stations, but their power to censor regardless of what the general public thinks is incredible.
There is way too much power concentrated in one place for there to be such a thing as "free speech" when one person can stop your words from getting out.
This isn't a flame
Ce n'est pas une Pipe?
Fresh out, sorry.
The fact though is that to call a moron a moron or call a fool a fool is not a flame.
It is a simple statement of fact.
Anybody who could make a statement that wholly idiotic is either an idiot or a liar.
Simple statements of fact rather than a flame.
Verstehst?
Hard to enjoy those essential liberties when you're dead.
Well, as has been said before:
"Give me liberty or give me death".
Any other attitude is cowardice and treason.
Okay, last time I checked the terrorists were attacking us because of their religion, not because of any of your reasons.
You're this stupid, yet you have the mental capacity to keep your heart beating?
Wow.
This isn't a flame. I'm truly amazed by this.
Either that or you're a lying sack of shit.
Please pull your head out of your ass and brush your teeth before you open your mouth again. Too much idiotic shit is spewing out.
Look, either you trust your media outlet, or you don't. If you trust them, it's OK to retouch meaningless pictures with a bit of photoshop. If you don't, photo doctoring doesn't make a bit of a difference.
Of course the simple fact is that if you trust any mass media outlet then you are a fool.
They are a business, which means that they produce a good or service and then give it to somebody else in exchange for something else, usually money. Most people seem to think that news or information or something like that is their product, but it's not. Nobody pays for it, so it can't be.
Their product is you and I. More specifically our eyeballs, attention, whatever. Their customers are often the people who they are supposed to be investigating (filthy word in modern American media). This is a clear conflict of interest.
If they can make more money by lying and manipulating the public, then they are obligated by law to do so assuming that they are part of a publically owned corporation.
Therefore, placing any trust at all in these jackals is the height of stupidity.
Here's a great example.
About 3 weeks before the world trade center attacks John O'Neill resigned his position as Deputy Director of the FBI in protest against Bush for interfering with their investigations into terrorism due to his oil connections. He was specifically banned from investigating the Saudis' funneling of money to the terrorists among other things. This was widely reported at the time since it was "newsworthy", but not particularly critical at the time.
Three weeks later this fact became the single most important piece of information in the entire world yet this wasn't even mentioned again.
Everybody who gets any camera time at all at a news outlet in this country is a traitor since they haven't said anything. So what if they would get fired. It's a little thing called integrity which has been extremely rare in this country for a long time.
Read a textbook on media ethics.
You seem to be implying that this would be relevant.
How will following a book of ethics increase profits for the shareholders unless everybody does it?
Once the anti-war protesters provide a solution and have a reasonable point, maybe I'll listen.
Once the anti-American freedom hating supporters of the traitor Bush can come up with a scrap of evidence that there was a reason to go in other than deflecting us from domestic issues pigs will fly down to hell to ice skate.
I've been conservative all my life. I believe that if someone does something illegal, they should be PUNISHED, not "forgiven"....
So are you saying that you support the impeachment of GW Bush and the prosecution of Jeb for voter fraud, or are you just not telling the truth?
The only success of gene therapy to date has been a French study in which 9 children with SCID (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency) were succesfully treated with gene therapy. Even this study has been halted for now because two of the patients have developed leukemia-like symptoms.
I don't know much about the details of gene therapy, but seven out of nine were ok?
What is the success rate for SCID otherwise?
they got rid of the pop up adds a while back, google did. And I never even knew about them till way after wards, I use moz
No shit?!?
I missed that whole bit.
Dude,
contact me at Some.bogus@emailaddress.com.
I can hook you up.
and I certainly don't pray facing Redmond when seeking devine innovation
Was "devine" an honest spelling mistake, or a very subtle jab?
Interestingly, a labour law professor of mine believes that the logical development of capitalism is that the big firms like MS will start buying all the smaller firms as they find smaller and smaller returns in their industry until we end up with just a few Uber-Corporations which ultimately end up owning everything.
I honestly don't intend you any offense, but....
You needed a professor to tell you this?
This is the inherent flaw in capitalism.
It's actually worse than that though.
With no restrictions whatsoever the end result of capitalism is one company which everybody works for for room and board.
A shitty room and barely edible board.
There will be a few people who live above this standard, but *exactly* enough people (with enough ((uneducated)) of them armed) to maximize the wealth of the one person on top.
Nobody has proposed (widely enough that I've heard of it) another system which is inherently better, but the flaws inherent in it were obvious a hundred years ago.
The key is to regulate the market enough to keep it "free enough" while maintaining a completly free voting system by an educated populace.
America has utterly failed at this.
See the MS anti-trust case and the Bush raped election.
Your spin is true enough, but it's merely detail.
After Microsoft took over, the number of spam messages I got skyrocketted (YMMV),
;-),
Not to defend MS (check my posting history
but check your spam quantity jump at any email address you have had since before then. I'll make an uninvestigated guess that it's at least close.
The rest of your points I can't address since I ditched my hotmail account when MS bought them