Why does every Microsoft Bashing Troll have a homepage that looks like it was designed in 1992?
Black text on a white background? Possibly it's a demographic that places importance on information rather than aesthetics. If I put up a web page it would probably look like that. Before I got married I had virtually no decoration in my house other than family photos. I still have less in the way of decoration and entertainment than most, but considerably more tools and educational books than most people.
Perhaps you are, if you get in the way. Practical eugenics will happen, and there isn't much you can do to stop it.
I would say that eugenics is a relatively normal process for any sufficiently self-aware species. The real issue is who is in charge of it. When I was looking for a wife, intelligence was one of my criteria. I do not regard myself as an evil eugenicist as a result. If the government/large corp was making that decision and compelling me to it I would see it very differently.
Right now many countries have implemented un-eugenics (or whatever would be the appropriate term). They take the resources by force from the intelligent and capable and give them to the stupid and incapable, enabling them to increase in number beyond their natural capability. That is something that certainly should be stopped.
But now we could do a lot to improve the odds on intelligence, just by culling all the known genes that tend to lower intelligence
If you are trying to improve average intelligence, IMO you could achieve a lot more through changing the child's environment than genetic selection at this point. As a homeschooling parent I can report that it is trivially easy to exceed the results expected in government schooling. Sure, my wife is trained as a teacher which most people aren't, but I'm not comparing homeschool vs school, just saying that much better results are possible.
Since most families do not have a parent at home available to teach (a situation that may be about to change due to economic collapse) I would suggest that education results could be improved out of sight by eliminating administrators, ie have much smaller schools, teacher run. Most of the teachers I know have an excellent approach/attitude to teaching but are constantly frustrated by the school system. Most administrators and principals I know desire the system more than any benefit to individual students. The system requires the students to be treated like cattle. I doubt if it is possible to raise a herd of super-intelligent cattle.
Screening for genetic tendency to intelligence and then processing those kids through the current cattle factory schools will probably not result in an improvement, but produce a mass of high capacity under performers virtually identical to a mass of low capacity under performers.
You don't need to know about theology to recognize the scientific fact that there is absolutely no evidence for a god.
Religion claims the existence of an invisible god. Science works by observation. So you claim that the invisible god doesn't exist because..... [drum roll]..... YOU CAN'T SEE IT!
I'm sure everyone will give up their religion once you tell them you can't see the invisible god. Completely different to all the invisible things you CAN see, right? Frankly, you don't seem to know anything at all about religion if you missed the invisible criteria for god.
Hasn't Mozilla said that they do not want to be bundled with Windows.
They gave up the right to make that decision when they chose an open source licence. They can decide not to try to make that happen, but they can't stop MS distributing it so long as they abide by the licence terms.
I suggest that, rather than taxing earned income, we exempt it and tax only unearned income.
Or are you trying to defend those who don't work for a living?
My father was self-employed. For decades, when others had holidays, he worked, when others relaxed on weekends, he worked, when others finished their work when the clock said they could, he finished work when the job was done. For decades, when others funded their lifestyles on their credit cards, he and my mother spent frugally, saved and invested. Now, in their retirement, the value of their assets and therefore their income is destroyed by who? Bankers, government bureaucrats and financiers who all have jobs. The wealth is being taken from my parents, who worked and saved, and given to those who relaxed and borrowed. Where's the justice in that? Your plan, in this case, would give the thieves a free pass and tax the victims.
The "unearned income" you want to tax ought to be the basis of everyone's retirement.
I do not believe the Presidency should be tracked to the extent that it is, because it undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job.
Follow the history of the west from the Magna Carta, English civil war + bill of rights, French revolution, US revolution, the US constitution etc. The thing that caused us to define ourselves as "Free Countries" is that we limit the governments power. If our standard for how we allow the government to be run was that we don't do anything that "undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job", the Bill of Rights would have to be abolished in its entirety.
The conservative position, sir, is to make things difficult for the government. If the government lacks the ability to do their job, let them call upon the militia, not suppress and deceive it.
I agree with you apart from one major thing. One should be against the so-called 'justice' bit as well. Society (whether individuals or the courts) should strive to better people, educate them.
Justice is an absolute necessity, even if it can't be perfectly implemented. As the definition I quoted states: "the administering of deserved punishment or reward." On what basis do you claim we should withhold deserved rewards from people? I know you haven't actually made that claim, but it all falls within the scope of justice. On what basis do you claim we should routinely withhold deserved punishments?
The idea you propose is to allow people to live without regard to causality, which is to say, without regard to reality. That's ok, by the way, right up until other people have to bear the negative consequences of your actions. Those consequences should be visited upon you, as fully and quickly as possible. Anything else is simply making the victims take the consequences of someone else's evil, which is far more unacceptable than punishing the offender.
You said "this 'er' jet pack has no real practical application at all". Now you seem to have changed your point to "this 'er' jet pack is not the most efficient solution to any need I've yet thought of". My post didn't rebut that point because it wasn't the one you made in the post I was replying to.
Did you quote something from before the USA existed when I asked "where does there currently exist slavery in the USA".
Yes, giving context to the use of the word slavery in the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, a document I assume you will agree has some relevance to the current situation in the USA (although not as much as we might hope). Leviathan is a very useful book for understanding english usage that is now out of date because it defines so many terms. A good example is the section "Not All Rights Are Alienable". Some people seem to have difficulty comprehending how you can acknowledge an inalienable right to life and liberty and still have prisons and capital punishment, a misunderstanding that could be addressed by reading that section. Slave was a word used to describe prisoners at the time of writing Leviathan and it appears to me that usage must have been still current when the 13th amendment was written.
For it to be slavery, they have to be forced to do work.
That would seem to be the current use of the word, but it is the use of the word in the 13th amendment I find interesting.
Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Note that it specifies two things separately, "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", so it seems likely that "slavery" referred to the forcible loss of freedom without regard to work requirements. Also note that slavery is not banned outright, it is specifically allowed on the condition of criminal conviction following due process. Since no country protects criminals rights to liberty after conviction, this applies to every country and is not considered by most people to be unjust (although they may be uncomfortable using the word slavery to describe it, just as you seem to be, even though the wording of the 13th amendment emphatically states that slavery is an acceptable punishment for crimes).
It is not debating the meaning of words on this issue that is the problem, however, it is the fact that people being punished by slavery, as allowed by the constitution, instead of being held by the government are now being held by private corporations with a profit motive to keep as many people incarcerated for as long as possible. As TFA indicates, this has led to people being incarcerated purely for profit motive when it was unnecessary for punishment purposes. Effectively what has happened is a state sponsored kidnapping and slavery business has grown within the system. The fact that the corporations profit comes primarily in the form of government contracts rather than the slave picking cotton has little relevance.
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes Despoticall Dominion, How Attained
Dominion acquired by Conquest, or Victory in war, is that which
some Writers call DESPOTICALL, from Despotes, which signifieth a Lord,
or Master; and is the Dominion of the Master over his Servant.
And this Dominion is then acquired to the Victor, when the Vanquished,
to avoyd the present stroke of death, covenanteth either in
expresse words, or by other sufficient signes of the Will,
that so long as his life, and the liberty of his body is allowed him,
the Victor shall have the use thereof, at his pleasure. And after such
Covenant made, the Vanquished is a SERVANT, and not before:
for by the word Servant (whether it be derived from Servire, to Serve,
or from Servare, to Save, which I leave to Grammarians to dispute)
is not meant a Captive, which is kept in prison, or bonds,
till the owner of him that took him, or bought him of one that did,
shall consider what to do with him: (for such men, (commonly
called Slaves,) have no obligation at all; but may break their bonds,
or the prison; and kill, or carry away captive their Master, justly:)
but one, that being taken, hath corporall liberty allowed him;
and upon promise not to run away, nor to do violence to his Master,
is trusted by him.
The word slavery applies to prisoners, although it is not commonly used that way anymore. In fact, the 13th amendment does not abolish slavery completely, being written in a manner consistent with the use of the word "slavery" in Leviathan.
Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
While the amendment restricts slavery to those convicted of crimes it does not expressly forbid that slavery to be in service to private interests provided the requirement of criminal conviction is met. This is the situation in the US right now.
The reality is this 'er' jet pack has no real practical application at all.
The ability to significantly extend visibility on boats too small to have a mast. This can have significant impact on search and rescue operations. It gives some of the visibility without a helicopter or large craft with the rescue potentially being much simpler by pulling someone into a boat.
It doesn't lack utility, it's just that your imagination must be busy doing something else.
If fiat currencies suddenly collapsed all the gold hoarders in the world would feel real smug for about 2 weeks, until they figured out that they can't eat the stuff, and no one is going to trade useful goods for a shiny hunk of metal.
Interesting theory, historically wrong, with no reason to believe that has changed. Gold and silver do not require government force to be accepted as currency for trade. As for your assertion that gold is useless, that is flat out wrong. Gold and silver, properly shaped and used as adornment possess a mystical quality that causes them to act as a catalyst to prepare women for sex. Due to this mystical quality there will likely always be almost universal demand for gold and silver.
Whatever action is chosen as 'punishment' should never be done for the reason of revenge, but instead as a preventative measure for others not to follow their path.
Care to explain why punishment should never be motivated by revenge? It seems to me that the idea is that we forsake personal revenge in favor of the courts implementing revenge with the goal of a more impartial and proportionate revenge than tends to happen otherwise.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Revenge carried out proportionally and impartially is also known by the name "Justice". The fifth definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice"the administering of deserved punishment or reward." Having a court system rather than personal revenge doesn't make justice not revenge, it is simply a method of trying to ensure that the "deserved" requirement is properly met.
The oligarchy appoints a set to choose from and mindless idiots pick the prettiest one.
If your assertion is correct, then the election of Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin proves that Americans are gay. Or the guys stayed home on election day.
If the door, opening, is on the top then where is the compressor, you know the thing that heats up? Heat rises so if it's on the bottom then the compressor has to work harder thus creating more heat. There are some manufacturers that place the compressors on top, such as Sun Frost.
He made it out of a chest freezer, which usually have better insulation that refrigerators. Also because of not loosing the cold air the compressor only runs about 90 seconds per hour, so I doubt it gets very hot. For people whose house is designed to fit an upright refrigerator the compressor on top is a good idea though.
of course not, but usually, you know, the government has to support the attacks generally? as opposed to having the group who purported the attacks simply being from that country
If you check it out I think you'll find that the Taliban was quite supportive of Al-Qaeda even if they didn't initiate the attacks. Supporting the organisation is equivalent to supporting their acts.
I'm sorry, but I find the virginia tech massacre comparison of grandparent valid.
and as I replied: "If that attack was a military/terrorist attack with political goals sponsored by an organisation as part of an ongoing campaign it would be appropriate to attack and destroy that organisation. If they were being sponsored and protected by a government it would be appropriate to take action against that government including, if necessary, military action." The virginian tech massacre was done by a lone man who would have been prosecuted had he lived. 911 was carried out by an organisation that the Taliban subsequently refused to act against. It is not a valid comparison.
Just because a country has a few nut jobs is not justification to go to 'war' with that country.
Unless of course those "few nut jobs" launch a major attack on your country and subsequently get protected by the government of that country as is the case in Afghanistan.
Mind you, I completely support our troops out there (I'm not from the US) and if I'm lucky may get a chance to go there myself with the military.
So it would seem that in this case you agree with me, unless you still think it is unjustified but want take part in it anyway.
Even the party that started this 'war' in the end conceded it was illegal. Some of them still think it was the right thing to do.
It is illegal, as far as I'm aware there has been no declaration of war by congress as required by the US constitution. The solution to that is to make a legal declaration of war, not allow your enemies to kill your people with impunity.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is justified because of a small group of rogue idiots.
We're coming after some idiots in your country [to Afghanistan]. Hand them over and we'll be gone. Otherwise get out of the way. Seriously though I'm not in favor of killing non-combatants at all. I just don't think that civilian casualties necessarily outweigh military objectives. Sometimes but not always and not in this case.
I'm not out to convince you either way, but I do think you should perhaps look at the other side of things sometimes, if a small group of american civilians bombed china, would it be appropriate for china to invade the US to stamp them out?
If the US government refused to extradite them, yes. Still might not be a good idea, but it would be justified.
The towel head nation did not attack you, a few of it's citizens did.
On behalf of an organisation supported by the Taliban, the governing body of Afghanistan at the time.
Should innocent people in the United States be killed in an invasion by another country if a bunch of rednecks jump the boarder and kill a few people.
If the US government supported and protected said rednecks and the civilian casualties were an unavoidable in the process of killing those rednecks then those civilian casualties would be the responsibility of the US government. Back to reality, if US citizens made an unprovoked attack on Mexico or Canada, that government of that country would apply for extradition of those citizens and the US government would co-operate, round them up and extradite them for trial. The murders would provoke outrage across the US, not the celebrations that happened in many countries after 911.
and bombing some poor desert peasants who have no chance of fighting back isn't cowardly?
That would be the "poor desert peasants" that sent the Soviet military packing, right? In any case, they were protecting those who organised an attack on the US that deliberately killed several thousand non-combatants. Their ability to counter-attack isn't relevant. You don't get any immunity from military action just because you pick a target that has more military strength than you.
By your logic 9/11 victims where not innocent since America had been messing with Afghanistan long before 9//11 hence any victims would simply be casualties of war no different than the people American troops are fighting.
No, I never said innocent people weren't innocent, I said that is not reason enough to refuse to fight the actual aggressors. If they had been killed as part of collateral damage during a strike at a military base or similar situation, they would be civilian casualties of a military strike rather than victims of terrorism. They wouldn't be less innocent but the action of the attackers would be seen differently by most people. As for "America had been messing with Afghanistan long before 9//11" I can only presume you are referring to arming them in their fight against the Soviets, which would generally be considered the act of an ally, not an enemy, or perhaps all the foreign aid spending the US did in Afghanistan?
We need research into different energy sources, it's true, but what boggles my mind is why people don't address the simple things in their own lives, if they're concerned about energy conservation.
Agreed. Another one is front opening refrigerators and freezers. Top opening is much more efficient because all the cold air isn't displaced by room temperature air every time you open it. This guy claims his chest refrigerator uses about 1/10th to 1/20th of the power of an upright one. He also gives the plan and parts list for the conversion. I'm going to be doing this soon. The "Thermostat diagram" link also has an article on his reasoning and installation info etc.
Your level of ignorance astounds me, you really believe that an entire nation is at fault for the actions of a few?
That's just stupid. Countries don't just tolerate other countries attacking them simply because not every single citizen was involved in the attack. Otherwise any country could launch attacks anywhere with impunity simply by maintaining a portion of innocent civilians.
Never in history has every person in a country been responsible for military aggression. At the very least, babies and small children do not participate. That's no reason to let other countries attack you with no fear of retaliation. Your mentality is what allows terrorists to gain sympathy by using civilians as human shields. Then they play the victim card when they are rightly counter-attacked. You, sir, are part of the problem.
War is a terrible thing, but it isn't the worst thing. Allowing your own people to be killed with impunity and being unwilling to fight back is worse. It is cowardice, even if you make some bleating excuse. Even Ghandi, as a pacifist, preferred violence to cowardice if those were the only choices.
Al-Qaeda did that? How on Earth did a database file named Al-Qaeda, that contained the names of all the horrible people the CIA gave money/weapons to in the 80s in Afghanistan, fly 2 planes into 2 buildings?
I think some people may have done it, personally
As I said "You know, those guys hiding in Afghanistan." The "guys hiding in Afghanistan" being the "people" you mention, you idiot. Whether you think Al-Qaeda is the correct name to use to describe their organisation is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does every Microsoft Bashing Troll have a homepage that looks like it was designed in 1992?
Black text on a white background? Possibly it's a demographic that places importance on information rather than aesthetics. If I put up a web page it would probably look like that. Before I got married I had virtually no decoration in my house other than family photos. I still have less in the way of decoration and entertainment than most, but considerably more tools and educational books than most people.
Perhaps you are, if you get in the way. Practical eugenics will happen, and there isn't much you can do to stop it.
I would say that eugenics is a relatively normal process for any sufficiently self-aware species. The real issue is who is in charge of it. When I was looking for a wife, intelligence was one of my criteria. I do not regard myself as an evil eugenicist as a result. If the government/large corp was making that decision and compelling me to it I would see it very differently.
Right now many countries have implemented un-eugenics (or whatever would be the appropriate term). They take the resources by force from the intelligent and capable and give them to the stupid and incapable, enabling them to increase in number beyond their natural capability. That is something that certainly should be stopped.
But now we could do a lot to improve the odds on intelligence, just by culling all the known genes that tend to lower intelligence
If you are trying to improve average intelligence, IMO you could achieve a lot more through changing the child's environment than genetic selection at this point. As a homeschooling parent I can report that it is trivially easy to exceed the results expected in government schooling. Sure, my wife is trained as a teacher which most people aren't, but I'm not comparing homeschool vs school, just saying that much better results are possible.
Since most families do not have a parent at home available to teach (a situation that may be about to change due to economic collapse) I would suggest that education results could be improved out of sight by eliminating administrators, ie have much smaller schools, teacher run. Most of the teachers I know have an excellent approach/attitude to teaching but are constantly frustrated by the school system. Most administrators and principals I know desire the system more than any benefit to individual students. The system requires the students to be treated like cattle. I doubt if it is possible to raise a herd of super-intelligent cattle.
Screening for genetic tendency to intelligence and then processing those kids through the current cattle factory schools will probably not result in an improvement, but produce a mass of high capacity under performers virtually identical to a mass of low capacity under performers.
You don't need to know about theology to recognize the scientific fact that there is absolutely no evidence for a god.
Religion claims the existence of an invisible god. Science works by observation. So you claim that the invisible god doesn't exist because ..... [drum roll] ..... YOU CAN'T SEE IT!
I'm sure everyone will give up their religion once you tell them you can't see the invisible god. Completely different to all the invisible things you CAN see, right? Frankly, you don't seem to know anything at all about religion if you missed the invisible criteria for god.
Here in Australia 2 cents/kbyte is within the normal range of fees. Many data connections are basically useless here.
Hasn't Mozilla said that they do not want to be bundled with Windows.
They gave up the right to make that decision when they chose an open source licence. They can decide not to try to make that happen, but they can't stop MS distributing it so long as they abide by the licence terms.
Are you by any chance this Tubal Cain? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=TubalCain
I suggest that, rather than taxing earned income, we exempt it and tax only unearned income.
Or are you trying to defend those who don't work for a living?
My father was self-employed. For decades, when others had holidays, he worked, when others relaxed on weekends, he worked, when others finished their work when the clock said they could, he finished work when the job was done. For decades, when others funded their lifestyles on their credit cards, he and my mother spent frugally, saved and invested. Now, in their retirement, the value of their assets and therefore their income is destroyed by who? Bankers, government bureaucrats and financiers who all have jobs. The wealth is being taken from my parents, who worked and saved, and given to those who relaxed and borrowed. Where's the justice in that? Your plan, in this case, would give the thieves a free pass and tax the victims.
The "unearned income" you want to tax ought to be the basis of everyone's retirement.
I do not believe the Presidency should be tracked to the extent that it is, because it undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job.
Follow the history of the west from the Magna Carta, English civil war + bill of rights, French revolution, US revolution, the US constitution etc. The thing that caused us to define ourselves as "Free Countries" is that we limit the governments power. If our standard for how we allow the government to be run was that we don't do anything that "undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job", the Bill of Rights would have to be abolished in its entirety.
The conservative position, sir, is to make things difficult for the government. If the government lacks the ability to do their job, let them call upon the militia, not suppress and deceive it.
I agree with you apart from one major thing. One should be against the so-called 'justice' bit as well. Society (whether individuals or the courts) should strive to better people, educate them.
Justice is an absolute necessity, even if it can't be perfectly implemented. As the definition I quoted states: "the administering of deserved punishment or reward." On what basis do you claim we should withhold deserved rewards from people? I know you haven't actually made that claim, but it all falls within the scope of justice. On what basis do you claim we should routinely withhold deserved punishments?
The idea you propose is to allow people to live without regard to causality, which is to say, without regard to reality. That's ok, by the way, right up until other people have to bear the negative consequences of your actions. Those consequences should be visited upon you, as fully and quickly as possible. Anything else is simply making the victims take the consequences of someone else's evil, which is far more unacceptable than punishing the offender.
Inefficient!=useless
You said "this 'er' jet pack has no real practical application at all". Now you seem to have changed your point to "this 'er' jet pack is not the most efficient solution to any need I've yet thought of". My post didn't rebut that point because it wasn't the one you made in the post I was replying to.
Did you quote something from before the USA existed when I asked "where does there currently exist slavery in the USA".
Yes, giving context to the use of the word slavery in the 13th amendment to the US Constitution, a document I assume you will agree has some relevance to the current situation in the USA (although not as much as we might hope). Leviathan is a very useful book for understanding english usage that is now out of date because it defines so many terms. A good example is the section "Not All Rights Are Alienable". Some people seem to have difficulty comprehending how you can acknowledge an inalienable right to life and liberty and still have prisons and capital punishment, a misunderstanding that could be addressed by reading that section. Slave was a word used to describe prisoners at the time of writing Leviathan and it appears to me that usage must have been still current when the 13th amendment was written.
For it to be slavery, they have to be forced to do work.
That would seem to be the current use of the word, but it is the use of the word in the 13th amendment I find interesting.
Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Note that it specifies two things separately, "slavery" and "involuntary servitude", so it seems likely that "slavery" referred to the forcible loss of freedom without regard to work requirements. Also note that slavery is not banned outright, it is specifically allowed on the condition of criminal conviction following due process. Since no country protects criminals rights to liberty after conviction, this applies to every country and is not considered by most people to be unjust (although they may be uncomfortable using the word slavery to describe it, just as you seem to be, even though the wording of the 13th amendment emphatically states that slavery is an acceptable punishment for crimes).
It is not debating the meaning of words on this issue that is the problem, however, it is the fact that people being punished by slavery, as allowed by the constitution, instead of being held by the government are now being held by private corporations with a profit motive to keep as many people incarcerated for as long as possible. As TFA indicates, this has led to people being incarcerated purely for profit motive when it was unnecessary for punishment purposes. Effectively what has happened is a state sponsored kidnapping and slavery business has grown within the system. The fact that the corporations profit comes primarily in the form of government contracts rather than the slave picking cotton has little relevance.
Where do we have slavery in the USA?
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
Despoticall Dominion, How Attained
Dominion acquired by Conquest, or Victory in war, is that which some Writers call DESPOTICALL, from Despotes, which signifieth a Lord, or Master; and is the Dominion of the Master over his Servant. And this Dominion is then acquired to the Victor, when the Vanquished, to avoyd the present stroke of death, covenanteth either in expresse words, or by other sufficient signes of the Will, that so long as his life, and the liberty of his body is allowed him, the Victor shall have the use thereof, at his pleasure. And after such Covenant made, the Vanquished is a SERVANT, and not before: for by the word Servant (whether it be derived from Servire, to Serve, or from Servare, to Save, which I leave to Grammarians to dispute) is not meant a Captive, which is kept in prison, or bonds, till the owner of him that took him, or bought him of one that did, shall consider what to do with him: (for such men, (commonly called Slaves,) have no obligation at all; but may break their bonds, or the prison; and kill, or carry away captive their Master, justly:) but one, that being taken, hath corporall liberty allowed him; and upon promise not to run away, nor to do violence to his Master, is trusted by him.
The word slavery applies to prisoners, although it is not commonly used that way anymore. In fact, the 13th amendment does not abolish slavery completely, being written in a manner consistent with the use of the word "slavery" in Leviathan.
Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
While the amendment restricts slavery to those convicted of crimes it does not expressly forbid that slavery to be in service to private interests provided the requirement of criminal conviction is met. This is the situation in the US right now.
The reality is this 'er' jet pack has no real practical application at all.
The ability to significantly extend visibility on boats too small to have a mast. This can have significant impact on search and rescue operations. It gives some of the visibility without a helicopter or large craft with the rescue potentially being much simpler by pulling someone into a boat.
It doesn't lack utility, it's just that your imagination must be busy doing something else.
If fiat currencies suddenly collapsed all the gold hoarders in the world would feel real smug for about 2 weeks, until they figured out that they can't eat the stuff, and no one is going to trade useful goods for a shiny hunk of metal.
Interesting theory, historically wrong, with no reason to believe that has changed. Gold and silver do not require government force to be accepted as currency for trade. As for your assertion that gold is useless, that is flat out wrong. Gold and silver, properly shaped and used as adornment possess a mystical quality that causes them to act as a catalyst to prepare women for sex. Due to this mystical quality there will likely always be almost universal demand for gold and silver.
Whatever action is chosen as 'punishment' should never be done for the reason of revenge, but instead as a preventative measure for others not to follow their path.
Care to explain why punishment should never be motivated by revenge? It seems to me that the idea is that we forsake personal revenge in favor of the courts implementing revenge with the goal of a more impartial and proportionate revenge than tends to happen otherwise.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Revenge carried out proportionally and impartially is also known by the name "Justice". The fifth definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice "the administering of deserved punishment or reward." Having a court system rather than personal revenge doesn't make justice not revenge, it is simply a method of trying to ensure that the "deserved" requirement is properly met.
You don't need a general revolution to kill a couple of judges.
The boat is towed along behind the jetpack, so the range is correct, if you are only flying above water :)Which limits the practicality in my mind.
You're right. It's unlike all the other inventions that have no limit to their practicality.
The oligarchy appoints a set to choose from and mindless idiots pick the prettiest one.
If your assertion is correct, then the election of Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin proves that Americans are gay. Or the guys stayed home on election day.
If the door, opening, is on the top then where is the compressor, you know the thing that heats up? Heat rises so if it's on the bottom then the compressor has to work harder thus creating more heat. There are some manufacturers that place the compressors on top, such as Sun Frost.
He made it out of a chest freezer, which usually have better insulation that refrigerators. Also because of not loosing the cold air the compressor only runs about 90 seconds per hour, so I doubt it gets very hot. For people whose house is designed to fit an upright refrigerator the compressor on top is a good idea though.
of course not, but usually, you know, the government has to support the attacks generally? as opposed to having the group who purported the attacks simply being from that country
If you check it out I think you'll find that the Taliban was quite supportive of Al-Qaeda even if they didn't initiate the attacks. Supporting the organisation is equivalent to supporting their acts.
I'm sorry, but I find the virginia tech massacre comparison of grandparent valid.
and as I replied: "If that attack was a military/terrorist attack with political goals sponsored by an organisation as part of an ongoing campaign it would be appropriate to attack and destroy that organisation. If they were being sponsored and protected by a government it would be appropriate to take action against that government including, if necessary, military action." The virginian tech massacre was done by a lone man who would have been prosecuted had he lived. 911 was carried out by an organisation that the Taliban subsequently refused to act against. It is not a valid comparison.
Just because a country has a few nut jobs is not justification to go to 'war' with that country.
Unless of course those "few nut jobs" launch a major attack on your country and subsequently get protected by the government of that country as is the case in Afghanistan.
Mind you, I completely support our troops out there (I'm not from the US) and if I'm lucky may get a chance to go there myself with the military.
So it would seem that in this case you agree with me, unless you still think it is unjustified but want take part in it anyway.
Even the party that started this 'war' in the end conceded it was illegal. Some of them still think it was the right thing to do.
It is illegal, as far as I'm aware there has been no declaration of war by congress as required by the US constitution. The solution to that is to make a legal declaration of war, not allow your enemies to kill your people with impunity.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is justified because of a small group of rogue idiots.
We're coming after some idiots in your country [to Afghanistan]. Hand them over and we'll be gone. Otherwise get out of the way. Seriously though I'm not in favor of killing non-combatants at all. I just don't think that civilian casualties necessarily outweigh military objectives. Sometimes but not always and not in this case.
I'm not out to convince you either way, but I do think you should perhaps look at the other side of things sometimes, if a small group of american civilians bombed china, would it be appropriate for china to invade the US to stamp them out?
If the US government refused to extradite them, yes. Still might not be a good idea, but it would be justified.
The towel head nation did not attack you, a few of it's citizens did.
On behalf of an organisation supported by the Taliban, the governing body of Afghanistan at the time.
Should innocent people in the United States be killed in an invasion by another country if a bunch of rednecks jump the boarder and kill a few people.
If the US government supported and protected said rednecks and the civilian casualties were an unavoidable in the process of killing those rednecks then those civilian casualties would be the responsibility of the US government. Back to reality, if US citizens made an unprovoked attack on Mexico or Canada, that government of that country would apply for extradition of those citizens and the US government would co-operate, round them up and extradite them for trial. The murders would provoke outrage across the US, not the celebrations that happened in many countries after 911.
and bombing some poor desert peasants who have no chance of fighting back isn't cowardly?
That would be the "poor desert peasants" that sent the Soviet military packing, right? In any case, they were protecting those who organised an attack on the US that deliberately killed several thousand non-combatants. Their ability to counter-attack isn't relevant. You don't get any immunity from military action just because you pick a target that has more military strength than you.
By your logic 9/11 victims where not innocent since America had been messing with Afghanistan long before 9//11 hence any victims would simply be casualties of war no different than the people American troops are fighting.
No, I never said innocent people weren't innocent, I said that is not reason enough to refuse to fight the actual aggressors. If they had been killed as part of collateral damage during a strike at a military base or similar situation, they would be civilian casualties of a military strike rather than victims of terrorism. They wouldn't be less innocent but the action of the attackers would be seen differently by most people. As for "America had been messing with Afghanistan long before 9//11" I can only presume you are referring to arming them in their fight against the Soviets, which would generally be considered the act of an ally, not an enemy, or perhaps all the foreign aid spending the US did in Afghanistan?
We need research into different energy sources, it's true, but what boggles my mind is why people don't address the simple things in their own lives, if they're concerned about energy conservation.
Agreed. Another one is front opening refrigerators and freezers. Top opening is much more efficient because all the cold air isn't displaced by room temperature air every time you open it. This guy claims his chest refrigerator uses about 1/10th to 1/20th of the power of an upright one. He also gives the plan and parts list for the conversion. I'm going to be doing this soon. The "Thermostat diagram" link also has an article on his reasoning and installation info etc.
Your level of ignorance astounds me, you really believe that an entire nation is at fault for the actions of a few?
That's just stupid. Countries don't just tolerate other countries attacking them simply because not every single citizen was involved in the attack. Otherwise any country could launch attacks anywhere with impunity simply by maintaining a portion of innocent civilians.
Never in history has every person in a country been responsible for military aggression. At the very least, babies and small children do not participate. That's no reason to let other countries attack you with no fear of retaliation. Your mentality is what allows terrorists to gain sympathy by using civilians as human shields. Then they play the victim card when they are rightly counter-attacked. You, sir, are part of the problem.
War is a terrible thing, but it isn't the worst thing. Allowing your own people to be killed with impunity and being unwilling to fight back is worse. It is cowardice, even if you make some bleating excuse. Even Ghandi, as a pacifist, preferred violence to cowardice if those were the only choices.
Al-Qaeda did that? How on Earth did a database file named Al-Qaeda, that contained the names of all the horrible people the CIA gave money/weapons to in the 80s in Afghanistan, fly 2 planes into 2 buildings?
I think some people may have done it, personally
As I said "You know, those guys hiding in Afghanistan." The "guys hiding in Afghanistan" being the "people" you mention, you idiot. Whether you think Al-Qaeda is the correct name to use to describe their organisation is irrelevant.