The media is both out of control and stagnant. They seem to focus their energies (quite intently) on finding every last detail about Paris Hilton. Yet when it comes to national catastrophe's (think election shenanigans, etc.) they completely turn a blind eye. So its not that they are too aggressive, but rather they are aggressive with the wrong priorities.
>> If that is the case I think they threaten to drive themselves to obsoletion.
Nope, they will just have to lower their entrance standards to admit more wealthier students and less super-smart ones. There will probably be smart students amongst the wealthier population though, so not all is lost. However, clearly, the system would be less fair. Further, the collective student intellect would go down over time.
Alas...if I could only edit my response. Point noted.
An example of disadvantages, when I was in school, i couldnt afford to purchase the novel we were reading in class. So I had to get it from the library. Of course I couldnt find the exact same version/edition in the library so when we did readings in class, the page numbers didnt match etc. I had to scramble to keep up. All that for a $5 paperback. And NO, we didnt have even that much to share. So definitely, I am in favour of as much equality as can be achieved.
>>By the way, Batavia, IL isn't exactly a poor area. I bet most of the families in that Chicago suburb could afford the $150 expense.
The other arguments have be handled so I'll tackle this one. When you say "most" of the families can afford $150, what about the rest? Frankly, schools should NEVER allow a rich student to get disadvantages over poorer ones. There are enough ways to do so already (private turoring, cliff notes, etc.) Why mandate a new one?
Well Christians were associated with Al-Qaeda as well (keep in mind Bin Laden was initially funded by the CIA). However, I doubt you would feel that makes the Movement "christian." So to suggest Hitler was somehow intimately associated with Muslims was preposterous.
>>Cambodia
The civilian firebombing in Cambodia was lead by Henry Kissenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissenger). He was Jewish, so I apologize for including him in the Christian category.
I see...so if I understand you correctly:
0. Crimes.
1. Classify all crimes by non-Muslims as bad, but not terrorism.
2. Ignore said crimes, look the other way.
3. Repeat.
0. Crimes.
1. Classify all crimes by Muslims as terrorism.
2. Destroy village of said Muslims.
3. Rejoice in patriotic fervor.
4. Repeat
Or why Bush was impeached for over a dozen impeachable violations...oooh wait he wasnt. Or why Rumsfeld was prosecuted for war crimes....oh wait he wasnt.
>>Muslims have committed thousands of civilian attacks in the past 6 years, and have a total targeted civilians body count that dwarfs that of all other groups combined, over all of recorded history.
Really? Are you counting the Crusades, the Genocide of Native Americans, the Nazi Holocaust, the eradication of Hiroshima Nagasaki, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Iraq Sanctions? Or is it only terrorism when Muslims kill, but "patriotism" when Christians kill?
Fair? Redefining words and history to serve your purposes? Not fair at all. You could call any brutal regime "terrorists" under that type of definition.
No, war and genocide the Nazis might have committed, but no one except desperate debaters like yourself calls them terrorists. By the way, it is very low-class to pull the Nazi card out. I probably shouldn't have replied to you... Frankly, I don't see how the incineration of 13 million civilians can, under any value system, not be deemed terrorism. I'm not sure how I redefined this -- please, do define for me what the Nazi's did if it wasn't a heinous act of terrorism.
Also, do we at least both agree that the Nazis were Christians and not Muslims.
Huh? Sure we do, at least a lot more than most other countries.
First, there's the other branches of government. They don't have to go along with the President, especially since they control the purse-strings. That's how we finally got out of Vietnam, remember.
Second, there's the military. The President can't stay in power, in contravention of the Constitution, without support from the military. Most countries are this way, since the military usually has all the guns.
Lastly, there's the citizens. Many of us are armed, unlike in many other countries. The military may be powerful, but it's nowhere near as large as the citizenry. And Iraq is showing us every day exactly how effective guerrilla insurgents with improvised explosives and small arms can be against the world's most powerful military force. Besides, it's not likely most of the military would voluntarily go against their own countrymen. And then there is the media, which will suggest that losing rights is good for us, lull us into complacency, and encourage us to vote away our rights. So all the military, arms, whatever, doesn't help if we ourselves don't care about rights. Which we don't, as evidenced by the lack of uproar over the past five years' shredding of the Bill of Rights.
And, I would really like to see some Muslim protests, in the street, against terrorism - those (rare) strongly worded letters condemning terrorism don't cut it in my book.
I would like to see more Christians on the streets protesting Abu Gharaib (sickening), Guantanamo Bay (sickening), the funding of the Iran-Iraq war (half million dead), the civilian sanctions on Iraq (1.5Million civilians dead), and the shelling of civilian Lebanese in the 1980s and 2005. Frankly, people are lazy, but that doesnt mean they approve something. To prove my point, I'm curious, have you protested in the streets against the above terrorist incidents? What about your family and co-workers. Amazingly, in an informal poll I did at work half my co-workers *openly support* above atrocities! Over half support the civilian incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So lets admit that there are swaths of people in every religion who are very misinformed, unintelligent, lazy, or perhaps evil.
In western countries with representative democracies, we still have the faint hope that we can vote our way to a better government. As bad as Bush is, unless he decides to unilaterally declare himself dictator, or call off elections and declare himself President until he decides to step down, he's going to be out in 18 months.
What makes you feel that only Western governments have representative governments? India is the largest democracy in the world and has a representative government? So are dozens of countries in Asia. Are the elections fair? Not always. But please raise your hand if you feel the 2000 and 2004 Presidential votes were fair.
FYI..Nazi's were not Muslims. Neither were the individuals who commanded over the incineration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima's civilian populations. Neither is Alan Dershowitz, who proposes Poland-style collective punishment. Can I see your count...?
Are you suggesting Nazis were not terrorists? Because from what I understand, Nazis, who brutally exterminated upwards of 13 million people, were NOT Arabs nor were they Muslims. In fact they were Christians. Now, were they following Christian beliefs, ofcourse not as the Bible does not justify such killings. But then again...the Quran does not justify Bin Laden either. So if we are going to count terrorists, I suggest starting out counting the ENTIRE nazi population. Fair?
>> I tend to view the issue with plane crashes (and terrorism, which is even more ridiculously unlikely) is the loss of control.
If loss of control were a problem people wouldnt drink [and drive] would they:-)
>> "passive fructose/sugar consumption".
No, but there are still damages. Even though I dont get sick directly, a VAST portion of our national health care resources are spent on obesity-induced illnesses. So unlike smoking, we dont get sick directly, but we do get hit with a tax penalty. Also, due to allocation of limited resources, largely non-induced illnesses such as certain cancers get less health care/research funding.
While your comment would make sense in a completely altruistic world, we have laws in our nation which specifically disallow some of these accused actions
>> Okay... he took their idea. So what? Ideas are cheap, one in a hundred thousand ever becomes anything worthwhile, and if you have a good idea and you give it away you're an idiot. --> Yes, an idiot. But still an idiot backed by law if any NDA/Non-compete agreements were signed (article does not discuss)
>> You're especially stupid if you give it to someone who is better at execution than you are and don't have a formal agreement --> Very well said
>> Now, if the guy stole their source code, that would be different....Odds are any code he ripped off isn't in service anymore anyway. --> Yes, but it was used to launch the company, they wouldnt be where they are now w/o it. If they could have been, why steal the code in the first place?
How classic "my lie was uncovered, so lets criticize the investigator's spelling [rather than my ridiculous assumption that half the women in some random country are secretly killed with no trail left behind in the media]"
Thank you for demonstrating the cluelessness of your own arguments. Quite obviously the 10Million figure was an out-right lie to highlight the ridiculousness of your assertion that half of all women are secretly killed in the UAE. I guess that one went way over your head. Exactly as you say, if 10 million women were killed in the US there would be an uprising. Similarly if HALF the women were killed in the UAE, there would be an uprising, no? So stop making up facts to support your political views.
I am not apologizing for honor killings any more than you are apologizing for the 10 million Christian women killed by their husbands in the United States yearly. Rather, we simply disagree with the premise that it is happenning to any registrable extent.
So how about you either stop manipulating facts to suit your own biased agenda, or provide concrete facts to support honor killings. Not an isolated incident, as I can find those (http://www.sptimes.com/News/041800/Hillsborough/M an_kills_wife__self_.shtml) but hard numbers. I assure you that outside unreferenced claims by Ruppert Murdoch's minions, you will not find anything.
Regardless of what you learn from Bill OReilly, I can assure you HALF the women are NOT undergoing honor killings. Honor killings are a myth perpetuated by Western Media to dehumanize Muslims and justify further attacks on Muslims. Do men kill women in the middle east? yes. But someone in NYC also killed their wife last week. Here is another incident:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/041800/Hillsborough/Ma n_kills_wife__self_.shtml
Vicissidude clearly has an agenda.
This is a fallacy. Take the simplest case. You give away $100. You get a tax break of ~48%. You are still down $52. How is this a benefit? No. it is not. Giving away money, unless you are speaking of some crazy tax shelter, always makes you poorer, not richer. If that wasnt the case, wouldnt everyone give ALL their money away?
Slashdot Mirror
The media is both out of control and stagnant. They seem to focus their energies (quite intently) on finding every last detail about Paris Hilton. Yet when it comes to national catastrophe's (think election shenanigans, etc.) they completely turn a blind eye. So its not that they are too aggressive, but rather they are aggressive with the wrong priorities.
>> If that is the case I think they threaten to drive themselves to obsoletion.
Nope, they will just have to lower their entrance standards to admit more wealthier students and less super-smart ones. There will probably be smart students amongst the wealthier population though, so not all is lost. However, clearly, the system would be less fair. Further, the collective student intellect would go down over time.
Alas...if I could only edit my response. Point noted.
An example of disadvantages, when I was in school, i couldnt afford to purchase the novel we were reading in class. So I had to get it from the library. Of course I couldnt find the exact same version/edition in the library so when we did readings in class, the page numbers didnt match etc. I had to scramble to keep up. All that for a $5 paperback. And NO, we didnt have even that much to share. So definitely, I am in favour of as much equality as can be achieved.
>>By the way, Batavia, IL isn't exactly a poor area. I bet most of the families in that Chicago suburb could afford the $150 expense.
The other arguments have be handled so I'll tackle this one. When you say "most" of the families can afford $150, what about the rest? Frankly, schools should NEVER allow a rich student to get disadvantages over poorer ones. There are enough ways to do so already (private turoring, cliff notes, etc.) Why mandate a new one?
Well Christians were associated with Al-Qaeda as well (keep in mind Bin Laden was initially funded by the CIA). However, I doubt you would feel that makes the Movement "christian." So to suggest Hitler was somehow intimately associated with Muslims was preposterous.
>>Cambodia The civilian firebombing in Cambodia was lead by Henry Kissenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissenger). He was Jewish, so I apologize for including him in the Christian category.
I see...so if I understand you correctly:
0. Crimes.
1. Classify all crimes by non-Muslims as bad, but not terrorism.
2. Ignore said crimes, look the other way.
3. Repeat.
0. Crimes.
1. Classify all crimes by Muslims as terrorism.
2. Destroy village of said Muslims.
3. Rejoice in patriotic fervor.
4. Repeat
Does this summarize your classification approach?
Or why Bush was impeached for over a dozen impeachable violations...oooh wait he wasnt. Or why Rumsfeld was prosecuted for war crimes....oh wait he wasnt.
>>Muslims have committed thousands of civilian attacks in the past 6 years, and have a total targeted civilians body count that dwarfs that of all other groups combined, over all of recorded history. Really? Are you counting the Crusades, the Genocide of Native Americans, the Nazi Holocaust, the eradication of Hiroshima Nagasaki, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Iraq Sanctions? Or is it only terrorism when Muslims kill, but "patriotism" when Christians kill?
No, war and genocide the Nazis might have committed, but no one except desperate debaters like yourself calls them terrorists. By the way, it is very low-class to pull the Nazi card out. I probably shouldn't have replied to you... Frankly, I don't see how the incineration of 13 million civilians can, under any value system, not be deemed terrorism. I'm not sure how I redefined this -- please, do define for me what the Nazi's did if it wasn't a heinous act of terrorism.
Also, do we at least both agree that the Nazis were Christians and not Muslims.
First, there's the other branches of government. They don't have to go along with the President, especially since they control the purse-strings. That's how we finally got out of Vietnam, remember.
Second, there's the military. The President can't stay in power, in contravention of the Constitution, without support from the military. Most countries are this way, since the military usually has all the guns.
Lastly, there's the citizens. Many of us are armed, unlike in many other countries. The military may be powerful, but it's nowhere near as large as the citizenry. And Iraq is showing us every day exactly how effective guerrilla insurgents with improvised explosives and small arms can be against the world's most powerful military force. Besides, it's not likely most of the military would voluntarily go against their own countrymen.
And then there is the media, which will suggest that losing rights is good for us, lull us into complacency, and encourage us to vote away our rights. So all the military, arms, whatever, doesn't help if we ourselves don't care about rights. Which we don't, as evidenced by the lack of uproar over the past five years' shredding of the Bill of Rights.
And, I would really like to see some Muslim protests, in the street, against terrorism - those (rare) strongly worded letters condemning terrorism don't cut it in my book.
I would like to see more Christians on the streets protesting Abu Gharaib (sickening), Guantanamo Bay (sickening), the funding of the Iran-Iraq war (half million dead), the civilian sanctions on Iraq (1.5Million civilians dead), and the shelling of civilian Lebanese in the 1980s and 2005. Frankly, people are lazy, but that doesnt mean they approve something. To prove my point, I'm curious, have you protested in the streets against the above terrorist incidents? What about your family and co-workers. Amazingly, in an informal poll I did at work half my co-workers *openly support* above atrocities! Over half support the civilian incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So lets admit that there are swaths of people in every religion who are very misinformed, unintelligent, lazy, or perhaps evil.In western countries with representative democracies, we still have the faint hope that we can vote our way to a better government. As bad as Bush is, unless he decides to unilaterally declare himself dictator, or call off elections and declare himself President until he decides to step down, he's going to be out in 18 months.
What makes you feel that only Western governments have representative governments? India is the largest democracy in the world and has a representative government? So are dozens of countries in Asia. Are the elections fair? Not always. But please raise your hand if you feel the 2000 and 2004 Presidential votes were fair.
FYI..Nazi's were not Muslims. Neither were the individuals who commanded over the incineration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima's civilian populations. Neither is Alan Dershowitz, who proposes Poland-style collective punishment. Can I see your count...?
Are you suggesting Nazis were not terrorists? Because from what I understand, Nazis, who brutally exterminated upwards of 13 million people, were NOT Arabs nor were they Muslims. In fact they were Christians. Now, were they following Christian beliefs, ofcourse not as the Bible does not justify such killings. But then again...the Quran does not justify Bin Laden either. So if we are going to count terrorists, I suggest starting out counting the ENTIRE nazi population. Fair?
>> I tend to view the issue with plane crashes (and terrorism, which is even more ridiculously unlikely) is the loss of control. If loss of control were a problem people wouldnt drink [and drive] would they :-)
>> don't worry about stuff you have no control over.
Which is exactly the point of this article -- you DO have some control over survival!
>> "passive fructose/sugar consumption". No, but there are still damages. Even though I dont get sick directly, a VAST portion of our national health care resources are spent on obesity-induced illnesses. So unlike smoking, we dont get sick directly, but we do get hit with a tax penalty. Also, due to allocation of limited resources, largely non-induced illnesses such as certain cancers get less health care/research funding.
While your comment would make sense in a completely altruistic world, we have laws in our nation which specifically disallow some of these accused actions
... he took their idea. So what? Ideas are cheap, one in a hundred thousand ever becomes anything worthwhile, and if you have a good idea and you give it away you're an idiot.
...Odds are any code he ripped off isn't in service anymore anyway.
>> Okay
--> Yes, an idiot. But still an idiot backed by law if any NDA/Non-compete agreements were signed (article does not discuss)
>> You're especially stupid if you give it to someone who is better at execution than you are and don't have a formal agreement
--> Very well said
>> Now, if the guy stole their source code, that would be different.
--> Yes, but it was used to launch the company, they wouldnt be where they are now w/o it. If they could have been, why steal the code in the first place?
How classic "my lie was uncovered, so lets criticize the investigator's spelling [rather than my ridiculous assumption that half the women in some random country are secretly killed with no trail left behind in the media]"
Thank you for demonstrating the cluelessness of your own arguments. Quite obviously the 10Million figure was an out-right lie to highlight the ridiculousness of your assertion that half of all women are secretly killed in the UAE. I guess that one went way over your head. Exactly as you say, if 10 million women were killed in the US there would be an uprising. Similarly if HALF the women were killed in the UAE, there would be an uprising, no? So stop making up facts to support your political views.
I am not apologizing for honor killings any more than you are apologizing for the 10 million Christian women killed by their husbands in the United States yearly. Rather, we simply disagree with the premise that it is happenning to any registrable extent. So how about you either stop manipulating facts to suit your own biased agenda, or provide concrete facts to support honor killings. Not an isolated incident, as I can find those (http://www.sptimes.com/News/041800/Hillsborough/M an_kills_wife__self_.shtml) but hard numbers. I assure you that outside unreferenced claims by Ruppert Murdoch's minions, you will not find anything.
Well, according to Vicissidude, Alaska probably has an Honor Killing problem...
Regardless of what you learn from Bill OReilly, I can assure you HALF the women are NOT undergoing honor killings. Honor killings are a myth perpetuated by Western Media to dehumanize Muslims and justify further attacks on Muslims. Do men kill women in the middle east? yes. But someone in NYC also killed their wife last week. Here is another incident: http://www.sptimes.com/News/041800/Hillsborough/Ma n_kills_wife__self_.shtml
Vicissidude clearly has an agenda.
This is a fallacy. Take the simplest case. You give away $100. You get a tax break of ~48%. You are still down $52. How is this a benefit? No. it is not. Giving away money, unless you are speaking of some crazy tax shelter, always makes you poorer, not richer. If that wasnt the case, wouldnt everyone give ALL their money away?