How better to discredit anti war protesters than to make them look like a bunch of hallucinating idiots.
And we don't even have to try!
On a more serious note, this is a public gathering in a public place. I would say the expectation of privacy here is about as big as my expectation of getting this post modded up.
On the other hand, if there were robotic horse-flies in the Porta-potties...
But a couple of years ago, a few sceptics (including me) were making similar comments on Slashdot, and Amiga fanboys were all over us, accusing of flamebaiting and fuding. Where are they now?
Desperately poring over eBay for a $200+ network or graphics card... using a friend's PC.
Code is kept "secret" because the companies, rightly or wrongly, think it gives them a competitive advantage.
I have to agree with you there, but I would word it a little differently. The code is secret because it may give the company a competitive advantage; releasing the code, however, guarantees that competitive advantage is gone.
As a hobbyist who enjoys old computers and software, here is a question the vintage computer community often hears: Why do companies refuse to release or open software that is old, obsolete, and not even sold anymore, even if someone wanted to buy it? (Sometimes the answer is, we don't know who owns it. Even the people who own it may not know it.) If a large-ish company owns the software, the answer boils down to: we gain absolutely nothing by releasing this code. Losing nothing versus losing an unknown quantity is a no-brainer in business.
As for the merits of the study itself, I think this Slate article has a pretty good takedown of their 2004 study:
...the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language--98,000--is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
Now, that addresses the 2004 study, not the 2006 study, I know. The 2006 study still had a wide margin on either side of that number, though, and who knows how much they "cooked the books."
But my objection to you is that you blame American soldiers, directly, for killing them. I would imagine that the vast majority of civilian deaths are the results of terrorists and other unlawful combatants. Many "civilians" that you are concerned about are no doubt terrorists themselves, since they are not part of a regular army.
..that's a 0.00002% chance of being killed in a terrorist act...okay, is a 0.00002% chance of being killed by a terrorist in the U.S. worth being arrested and convicted of treason for making a post like the one I am typing right now? Are we really THAT full of fear?
It's not fear of death, for me anyway - it's the fear that America is going the way of the ancient Roman empire, that we are being pulled down by corruption from within and without. I do not want to live in a world where we can excuse terror attacks on our soil just because we can absorb the financial cost, and the cost in human life.
And are you really THAT full of fear, typing your post? I hope (and suspect) you are not. If you are, you are the one who should be worrying about paranoid delusions.
The "600,000 civilians" is a crap number, and it has to stop.
Prove it.
There have been many, many civilian deaths, at the hands of Al Queda in Iraq, and due to sectarian strife. Also, I am sure the US armed forces have killed many "civilians" who were killing people - civilian as in unlawful combatant. (Iraqi soldiers are not under an enemy flag anymore.)
There are the unfortunate mistakes in the fog of war, and the terrible bad things that soldiers have done. These are the exception, though.
Also, remember - under our repressive Bushilter regime, you can't criticize our soldiers anymore! How you slipped one through, I can't guess.
Re:please actually read my review, it's not that l
on
Republic.com 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone know of a Conservative/Republican forum that allows for branching discussions?
As a Conservative/Republican, I am ashamed to say that I know of none. Generally any conservative forum I have found is either representing the worst of the conservative and/or Republican mindset ("Illegal immigrants are coming to unplug our dead ladies!"), or they are trolled into oblivion. Little Green Footballs is a good blog (from a conservative POV, of course), but they don't thread reader comments. Is there something in the conservative mindset that rebels against threaded convos?
Anyway, that's why I come here and take my -1 Troll & -1 Flamebait!
Want to support a rebel group labeled as a terrorist organization?
Define "support." Verbal advocacy is one thing, but those who do so are often found to materially support terrorist groups as well.
Want to show a picture of Mohamed?
No one is stopping you.
Want to eat dog meat?
Not really speech, is it? Anyway, you probably could get away with it in the US provided you didn't butcher the dog yourself. Also, my dog would like a word with you.
Want to criticize your countries armed forces?
This happens every day.
Want to swear or show your breast in public?
Again, not speech. If it's any consolation, I would support a ban on exposing the male breast.
Want to oppose legislation made "For the children"?
I can and do.
Want to promote use of an illegal substance?
Again, advocacy is one thing, other support is something else. (Hint: the word "illegal" is in there.)
My responses come from a United States point of view, so if you are referring to some other country, my apologies.
You are arguing as if Broadway == Off-Broadway, at least that's what I gather. I would suspect that Broadway is just more popular, and has more money coming in.
Let me ask you: why didn't you just go to Broadway and skip Off-Broadway all together? You could have made over $20/hr, but still under-cut their regular stage-hand rate.
Don't worry - the US will soon respond with their "Alcoholic Step-Dad of All Bombs."
Re:The Saddam/911 myth persists because powerful
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
"What I want to know is, who in the Administration EVER said that Saddam plotted 9/11? I never heard that said. I have heard people who oppose the Bush Administration say that the Bush Administration said it, but I have never heard a quote from the Bush Administration saying (or implying) it."
That's the point! They didn't have to say it. They only had to keep mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence, or in close proximity, to make the association become real for many people.
So, if Bush linked 9/11 to Iraq, he's making the association. If Bush did not link 9/11 to Iraq, he's still making the association. Thanks, I understand now.
So, yes. The Bush administration did set out to imply that Hussein was involved with 9/11, but more importantly, to create the illusion that we could seek justice/revenge for 9/11 by attacking Iraq.
Nothing in your post leads up to this statement. Pretty cute, indeed.
Sorry, your original post did not make it clear that 'we' referred to 'the west' (or rather, western civilization) in general. Your follwing statement made a reference to the US, and that was the cause of my confusion. I really thought you were either pretending to be an American, or an American affecting an alternate spelling, hence my snide tone.
For the Wal-Mart episode, they want to show what the anti-Wal-Mart crowd looks like, so they find these two nasty people who print up nasty t-shirts belittling some cruel stereotype of the Wal-Mart shopper, as well as the stereotype's wife and children.
Who's going to agree with that?
I don't know, maybe... all of Slashdot?
Seriously, I am a defender of Wal-Mart's right to exist, and do my grocery shopping at Wal-Mart. However, their customers really are a bunch of loathesome hicks and hayseeds.
Slashdot Mirror
I could say, "but that's not what happened." But one time I said that and was criticized for a "straw man" attack.
So I'm going to say: "Do you have a specific example in mind?"
And we don't even have to try!
On a more serious note, this is a public gathering in a public place. I would say the expectation of privacy here is about as big as my expectation of getting this post modded up.
On the other hand, if there were robotic horse-flies in the Porta-potties...
Desperately poring over eBay for a $200+ network or graphics card... using a friend's PC.
I have to agree with you there, but I would word it a little differently. The code is secret because it may give the company a competitive advantage; releasing the code, however, guarantees that competitive advantage is gone.
As a hobbyist who enjoys old computers and software, here is a question the vintage computer community often hears: Why do companies refuse to release or open software that is old, obsolete, and not even sold anymore, even if someone wanted to buy it? (Sometimes the answer is, we don't know who owns it. Even the people who own it may not know it.) If a large-ish company owns the software, the answer boils down to: we gain absolutely nothing by releasing this code. Losing nothing versus losing an unknown quantity is a no-brainer in business.
Well, there's also Microsoft Bob.
And the cops' tasers are just their way of applying moderation (-1 Troll).
Good thing he wasn't Flamebait.
(Seriously considering changing my sig to "Don't taser me, bro!")
(Maybe, if this meta-post didn't push it over the top...)
Now, that addresses the 2004 study, not the 2006 study, I know. The 2006 study still had a wide margin on either side of that number, though, and who knows how much they "cooked the books."
But my objection to you is that you blame American soldiers, directly, for killing them. I would imagine that the vast majority of civilian deaths are the results of terrorists and other unlawful combatants. Many "civilians" that you are concerned about are no doubt terrorists themselves, since they are not part of a regular army.
9/11 happened because of some crazy, pissed-off Muslims. What are you, some kind of retard?
It's not fear of death, for me anyway - it's the fear that America is going the way of the ancient Roman empire, that we are being pulled down by corruption from within and without. I do not want to live in a world where we can excuse terror attacks on our soil just because we can absorb the financial cost, and the cost in human life.
And are you really THAT full of fear, typing your post? I hope (and suspect) you are not. If you are, you are the one who should be worrying about paranoid delusions.
Prove it.
There have been many, many civilian deaths, at the hands of Al Queda in Iraq, and due to sectarian strife. Also, I am sure the US armed forces have killed many "civilians" who were killing people - civilian as in unlawful combatant. (Iraqi soldiers are not under an enemy flag anymore.)
There are the unfortunate mistakes in the fog of war, and the terrible bad things that soldiers have done. These are the exception, though.
Also, remember - under our repressive Bushilter regime, you can't criticize our soldiers anymore! How you slipped one through, I can't guess.
As a Conservative/Republican, I am ashamed to say that I know of none. Generally any conservative forum I have found is either representing the worst of the conservative and/or Republican mindset ("Illegal immigrants are coming to unplug our dead ladies!"), or they are trolled into oblivion. Little Green Footballs is a good blog (from a conservative POV, of course), but they don't thread reader comments. Is there something in the conservative mindset that rebels against threaded convos?
Anyway, that's why I come here and take my -1 Troll & -1 Flamebait!
Want to support a rebel group labeled as a terrorist organization?
Define "support." Verbal advocacy is one thing, but those who do so are often found to materially support terrorist groups as well.
Want to show a picture of Mohamed?
No one is stopping you.
Want to eat dog meat?
Not really speech, is it? Anyway, you probably could get away with it in the US provided you didn't butcher the dog yourself. Also, my dog would like a word with you.
Want to criticize your countries armed forces?
This happens every day.
Want to swear or show your breast in public?
Again, not speech. If it's any consolation, I would support a ban on exposing the male breast.
Want to oppose legislation made "For the children"?
I can and do.
Want to promote use of an illegal substance?
Again, advocacy is one thing, other support is something else. (Hint: the word "illegal" is in there.)
My responses come from a United States point of view, so if you are referring to some other country, my apologies.
Let me ask you: why didn't you just go to Broadway and skip Off-Broadway all together? You could have made over $20/hr, but still under-cut their regular stage-hand rate.
Don't worry - the US will soon respond with their "Alcoholic Step-Dad of All Bombs."
So, if Bush linked 9/11 to Iraq, he's making the association. If Bush did not link 9/11 to Iraq, he's still making the association. Thanks, I understand now.
Nothing in your post leads up to this statement. Pretty cute, indeed.Sorry, your original post did not make it clear that 'we' referred to 'the west' (or rather, western civilization) in general. Your follwing statement made a reference to the US, and that was the cause of my confusion. I really thought you were either pretending to be an American, or an American affecting an alternate spelling, hence my snide tone.
I'm sorry, who lets them host the games? Also, Americans don't "honour" anyone; we may "honor" someone or some thing, though...
Now we just have to figure out who this "J. J. Abrams Star Trek" is. Or maybe Jimmy Walker is producing a movie called "Abrams Star Trek."
"I'm sensing... great hostility!"
I could pretend that I was making a subtle reference to Lisp, but I'm giving you the prize. LOL, as the kids say.
...data was already stored in atoms?
I don't know, maybe... all of Slashdot?
Seriously, I am a defender of Wal-Mart's right to exist, and do my grocery shopping at Wal-Mart. However, their customers really are a bunch of loathesome hicks and hayseeds.
Not me, of course...