I had a similar conversation once while at work with a female colleage.
It was in regards to a crime commited by a few people in a footy team here in Aus, the cops were demanding the entire team hand over DNA evidence, i think one refused. It was being discussed and i mentioned that i wouldn't hand it over without a court order.
After she sputtered and spurted and finished ranting about how "it would prove your innocence so why wouldnt you" she dropped lthis little bombshell, "I think we should have a national DNA database, then the police could just solve crimes like that", and clicks her fingers, i tried to point out the total insanity of what she was suggesting.
The only way i got her to concede a little was when i asked "Who will manage this database". You see we were working for a department in the federal government, in IT no less, she had *first hand knowledge* of corruption that comes with power when one of the IT Consultants developed a crush on her and she realised he was reading her emails on the mailserver, totally outside of his area of responsibility.
Anyway point is i should have only had to say i dont have to prove *my* innocence to anyone and that should have been it, instead it was only the mechanics that managed to take the edge off her argument. It seems for most people liberal western ideals are viewed as naive, and that police state authorarianism is "how things are in the real world".
"Anyone claiming KDE or Gnome is anywhere close to OS X has been blinded by fanboyism or is just plain practicing Orwellian doublethinking."
I own an iBook and after two years still far prefer my PC with KDE. I cannot *stand* using OSX for anything but light internet.
With KDE i actually get work done the way *i* want instead of being railed into the "Apple Experience" with the "Apple Way" of doing things.
It's interesting, because i bought the laptop for my wife and lately she has been logging on to my PC more and more to get work done, "it's just easier" she says, "OH MY GOODNESS" i squeal "you just blasphemed against the Church of Apple, your obviously suffering from plain orwellian doublethink according to the fair and unbiased opinion of an expert i read on slashdot".
You offer no real argument to support this idea that OSX is so much greater than KDE or Gnome, as though we should just believe you because you say so, and if i don't well then, i'm just a fanboy or a nutcase, while you and the all the other rabid mac fanboys here are bastions of rational thought.
You make Linux zealots look moderate.
If OSX is just the greatest OS in the universe why is it still and forever a insignificant player in the OS market (what's that 2% i hear)?
"I hate MS as much as the next slashdotter, but this evil is so bad we do not even wish it upon them. Abuse is abuse."
Your comments are strange, I'm certain Microsoft are not feeling sorry for themselves, they understand the nature of the game they are playing, why would people feel sorry for them?? They *wanted* it this way, and now they have it (in the US at least).
Microsoft support software patents of this nature 100%, they placed huge pressure on the EU last year while it was considering whether or not to recognise software patents.
They do this for the simple reason that they may need to one day play the same game.
"If you really want to follow the slashdot paradigm, then mod me down for my pro-ish MS remarks."
LOL, is that the new way of saying "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." That was a sure fire way to get modded up six months ago?
Yes and overthrowing the democratic government in Iran because you didn't like a decision that was made, installing and arming your friend Saddam in Iraq, because of the outcome of your actions in Iran, backing and funding a state that came into being via terrorism in Israel.
Plus all the other meddling and general nasty actions your country has pushed onto much of the world in the last half century, frankly I'm surprised that you don't see more terrorism from South America after your dispicable actions there (though they create most of your really nasty illicit drugs so maybe that's their payback).
A decade ago you were probably at 60/40 for good and bad deeds throughout the world, up from 30/70 in the 70s and 80's now its back down to about 40/60 and looking to decline even further.
Plus i wouldn't call a steady supply of cheap oil (the absolute lifeblood of your economy and way of life) 'nothing'.
The single worst analogy i have *ever* read on this website.
The fact that it currently at +5, when it is so obviously unlike anything to even remotely do with the situation at hand speaks volumes about the rabid fanaticism and desperation of Apple zealots to ensure only good things are ever said about their religion. Truly you make Linux zealots look like intellectual giants.
Where does Apple get it's 'moral authority' from to tell me what i can do with *my* copy of the product that they took *my* cash for AFTER THEY TOOK MY BLOODY MONEY?
If they dont want me to do these things they need to tell me BEFORE they take my money not after, get it?
But thats the thing isn't it? If software companies started making people actually sign real big grown up contracts, instead of these candystore bullshit click-throughs people would actually start treating them like contracts, and most would laugh and laugh and laugh at the utter bullshit that exists within and simply walk. Because to 90% of reasonable people in this world, when they pay for a book, CD, toaster, TV, DVD player or any appliance (which is what normal people see a computer as) if the salesperson tries to make them sign a contract telling them where and how they can use it they will just say fuck off and leave.
Oh yes, and you may shove your warped sense of 'morality' and your hootytooty 'moral superiority' up your arse.
My parents were touring through the top end of Australia a popular destination for middle age couples for some strange reason considering it's 90% hot flat baren scrubland. Anywho they were towing a caravan with their Mitsubishi fourwheel drive, top speed on a flat with big-assed caravan.... 115KPH.
Anyway a cop pulls them over 'Sir we have you clocked at 145KPH', which is 30 over the limit which is a hefty fine. In Aus you can demand to see the read out on the display and sure enough it read 145.
Of course this set both my parents off, very respectable middle class individuals feeling the sting of police corruption (as it certainly was), anyway my dad mentioned they were in no hurry, they would be happy to stick around the nearest major town for a few weeks to fight it. He's a been mechanic for thirty years and if they wanted to argue about the top speed capabilities of a two tonne, three litre, 200 horsepower fourwheel drive, while towing a caravan, in front of a magistrate it would suit him just fine.
Of course they let them go, path of least resistance and all that. Now the interesting thing and the reason it *stinks* is about 5 minutes earlier a Telstra van (telecommunication company) had overtaken them and was absolutely screaming down the road, pretty obvious the coppers clocked him (perhaps fined him) then just left the readout up to pin on the next poor bastard they saw.
No real moral to the story, just that the whole speed enforcement system stinks to high hell like an alternative tax collection agency, without the legislation to ensure probity.
I agree that federal governments (well in Australia and i suppose the US as well being similar state vs federal models and all) shouldn't be involved in road building.
They can also give my income taxes back to my state the bastards:).
But i can't agree that road building should be private, it would be impossible for it to work, who ever gets to own the roads will own the state and country, nobody could possibly afford to buy up the existing property in cities to lay new roads (as if laying asphalt would be more lucrative than the existing structure as well) so competition would be zero. Plus it would be an absolute nightmare to drive anywhere if you had to stick to one companies roads.
But certainly the less each of our federal governments are involved in the better at this point.
Your rant stinks like the new attack of 'moral relativism' that American 'conservatives' have started to throw around at everyone they don't like (themselves being among the worst offenders when it comes to bending their morals).
The idea that unless you're an African villager you can't point out great waste is beyond ridiculous.
Lets try it from a lefties perspective...
Unless you stop using the socialist, nationalised road system, you can't possibly say that Communist Russia was excessive, only someone in libertarian Somalia has the 'moral authority' to say that.
That sit nicely with you?
Of course not, but you will bend your morality to fit your argument anyway, as you have done. Now when some neo greenie comes along in this thread and screams that we *should* be living like African villagers you will argue that he is an extremist and he just goes to show how rediculous 'liberals' are, and you will have snuggly wrapped yourself up in a blanket of self righteousness smirking that your 'right' and everyone else is 'wrong' totally ignoring the issue at hand which doesn't matter just as long as you feel like you have won the argument.
I *do* own the one copy of OSX that i bought, that's right all of it, every.single.byte. There is exactly one legal limit to what i can do with it and that is to redistribute it. If Apple doesn't like that then they will have to stop selling retail, if they want to involve unique contracts in the sale of their product then they can sit me down outlay the contract before me where i will read it and put my signature to it, as with every other company that does not wish their product to conform to the rules of retail selling.
If you bought a book then got home and found inside the front cover it stated 'You may not read this book while sitting on the toilet' I'm quite sure you would ignore it, perhaps getting annoyed at the people crying 'but you must do as it says it's a liiicense it will hurt the authors brand to have there book being read on the toilet'.
There is no difference between an author putting a little note inside the cover and Apple putting a little list inside the program, only to be found *after* i buy the product, it matters none, because:
A) It's mine i own it, you remember those property rights you keep espousing? Well they dont *only* apply to corporations and 'content producers' (though people like you seem to be happy enough for that to change).
B) You can't place restrictions on a purchase after i have given you the money and you have taken it.
C) You can't tell me what to do with something that is *mine*.
D) There was no negotiation regarding the terms of the 'license' (happy fun name for contract), i signed my name to nothing, nor did i verbally agree to anything.
If they don't like the rules of the game, then that's too bad because I'm not interested in changing them just to make you or Apple or happy, I'm not interested in moving into some sort of weird feudal system where i own nothing.
I wonder if you would be so defensive if it was Ford (you may not have this car serviced anywhere but a Ford service centre), or Panasonic (you may not view/listen to any content created by Sony on this appliance) or whoever made your sofa/couch (you may not take photos of this couch) or table (you may not eat mcdonalds food off this table) or bed (you may not have sex in this bed) that was placing these little 'licenses' on their products that you can't see and have no idea about until you got your purchase home?
-1 stereotypical american misdirected kneejerk hysterics
There's no successful people or businesses in socialist countries, (every first world country except the US), we all live in squalor in our featureless government owned one bedroom flats and eat cold baked beans every night dished out from the government food shelter.
You keep thinking that.
It would seem that these lawyers are the perfect American capitalists, seeing an opportunity to make money and taking it, providing a service that fills the need of their customers. The free market in action yes? They're just businesses after all, isn't it their moral and legal obligation to use every available semi-legal means to make money? So what if someone else gets screwed? They shouldn't be in business if they can't handle it.
Well that's what i hear from the basement dwelling 'libertarians' everytime someone questions a businesses' behaviour on this site, of course that is only until it affects them or something they like, then as with every bovine middle class American (and to some extent UK and Australian) whose greatest test of moral fibre and intestinal fortitude is to keep their flab under half their natural body weight, the deep sense of conviction that forms their ideals bends or is conveniently forgotten for the moment.
This is not world politics, it's schoolyard bullying, one person is trying to increase his position or boost his little ego by beating up the person he believes is the weakest in the group. If that person smacks the shit out of him, well obviously he wasnt the weakest was he? And next time the bully will go elsewhere.
This is my and i'm sure many many peoples experience in every school in the world.
I swear that the greatest travesty pushed onto their kids by the baby boomers is the idea that "Violence is never the answer". An entire generation of 'bullies' (read assholes) safety was assured when some twit came up with that mindless notion.
To you young fellas out there if some bastard is beating the shit out of you DONT JUST TAKE IT, every person has a natural right to protect themselves. You'll have the element of surprise on your side for the first few swings when you knock his teeth out (dont swing wildly, three or four nice strong jabs to the face will do it).
They would actually be called saboteurs if they only attacked military targets and infrastructure, without casualties being the primary target.
Or that's what they would have been called in more rational times, now maybe they wouldn't because the word doesn't end in 'ist', therefore doesn't fit the requirement to be an western government and mass media approved bogey man.
"ultimately to convert it to an extreme form of Islam - by force."
You have gone through an exotic array of ways that this group of people will (in your mind) kill a lot of people, but you and your ilk who just love spouting big rhetoric just never quite explain how a small group of individuals are going to forcefully convert 200+ million free individuals to:
A. Their law system B. Their religion
The first requires the total destruction of all civilian institions in your country the second is impossible.
If it was a large nation state like say China or Russia then yes it's possible that after a large nuclear war they may be left with enough army to invade and after decades of fighting force there way of life temporarily upon parts of your country, but you're trying to say that a loose-knit handful of mostly poor arabs are going to do the same? When they can't even do it to a country that is one tenth the size, one tenth the population and political stability of yours, that they share a border with AND have the backing of coventional armies AND hate the most??
Perhaps you should get your head out of the Tom Clancy novels, your hand off your cock, and come back to reality for just a minute or two.
How could a group of thugs force a nation of 200 million to accept a particular law and value system. Do they have the ability to overthrow your government and civilian institutions, gain control of the military and force that system onto your country, something that right now requires the active participation of about 5-10 million people, OOOORRR, do they have an army big enough to replace your army with theirs, suppress the poplution and insert there own government, OOOOORRRRRR, are you just being a big fat fucking shrill pussy alarmist?
People have died for liberty since time began what makes YOU so special?
Nothing, less than nothing considering what an obvious coward you are (oh the big bad anarc^H^H^Hcommu^H^H^H^terrorists are coming to eat our babies!!!). Get a grip.
With a dozen cars screaming down the road, once it gets to that stage (where there is enough cars to head it off, lay spikes, etc) the chase would have gone on for far to long and have put dozens if not hundreds of lives in immediate mortal danger.
Being that a chase will usually start when a single patrol car tries to stop someone and they take off, the moment the runner floors it, shoot this sucker and thats it. No need for a dozen cars hurtling through populated streets at rediculous speeds chasing someone of unknown driving ability and unknown state of mind (except absolutely pumping with adrenaline, thus ensuring tunnel vision and criticaly poor decision making abilities).
The greatest benefit? Innocent people wont die because the police where trying to arrest someone.
"If the police pursue a criminal in a high speed chase and someone else gets hurt as a result of it, the police have a good chance of being sued"
Why not concentrate on the fact that someone innocent has been hurt or killed? Isn't that enough? Is the only way to create the appearance of value in the minds of people to attach an economic value? Is it only useful if it can reduce the potential for litigation? WTF is wrong with western society right now?
Offtopic, there is plenty of times that the cops just need to back off a little and risk losing the joyrider, speeder, etc but ensure the safety of those around, when they push on irregardless (often fueled by testosterone) and an innocent person dies then it's perfectly reasonable for the cops to be held accountable *as any normal person would be if their direct actions resulted in killing or maiming someone, even if well intentioned*. And before the twits come, yes, as with anything there are exceptions blah blah blah.
Slashdot Mirror
I choose bad.
Thanks.
"We gotta do it the way the company owner wants, or he'll relocate out of the USA and there will be no jobs. What alternative is there?"
:)
We must seize the means of production!!!!
Oops wrong century.
I had a similar conversation once while at work with a female colleage.
It was in regards to a crime commited by a few people in a footy team here in Aus, the cops were demanding the entire team hand over DNA evidence, i think one refused. It was being discussed and i mentioned that i wouldn't hand it over without a court order.
After she sputtered and spurted and finished ranting about how "it would prove your innocence so why wouldnt you" she dropped lthis little bombshell, "I think we should have a national DNA database, then the police could just solve crimes like that", and clicks her fingers, i tried to point out the total insanity of what she was suggesting.
The only way i got her to concede a little was when i asked "Who will manage this database". You see we were working for a department in the federal government, in IT no less, she had *first hand knowledge* of corruption that comes with power when one of the IT Consultants developed a crush on her and she realised he was reading her emails on the mailserver, totally outside of his area of responsibility.
Anyway point is i should have only had to say i dont have to prove *my* innocence to anyone and that should have been it, instead it was only the mechanics that managed to take the edge off her argument. It seems for most people liberal western ideals are viewed as naive, and that police state authorarianism is "how things are in the real world".
"it would only benefit Linux and projects like KDE and Gnome, wouldn't it?"
Yes you are correct as Apple has taken *nothing* from KDE or the open source community has it? absolutely not a single thing. nothing.
*sound of crickets chirping*
Internet Explorer 6 works with Wine, i should think it works under Darwine as well.
It made me feel odd seeing that big blue e on my KDE desktop.
"Anyone claiming KDE or Gnome is anywhere close to OS X has been blinded by fanboyism or is just plain practicing Orwellian doublethinking."
I own an iBook and after two years still far prefer my PC with KDE. I cannot *stand* using OSX for anything but light internet.
With KDE i actually get work done the way *i* want instead of being railed into the "Apple Experience" with the "Apple Way" of doing things.
It's interesting, because i bought the laptop for my wife and lately she has been logging on to my PC more and more to get work done, "it's just easier" she says, "OH MY GOODNESS" i squeal "you just blasphemed against the Church of Apple, your obviously suffering from plain orwellian doublethink according to the fair and unbiased opinion of an expert i read on slashdot".
You offer no real argument to support this idea that OSX is so much greater than KDE or Gnome, as though we should just believe you because you say so, and if i don't well then, i'm just a fanboy or a nutcase, while you and the all the other rabid mac fanboys here are bastions of rational thought.
You make Linux zealots look moderate.
If OSX is just the greatest OS in the universe why is it still and forever a insignificant player in the OS market (what's that 2% i hear)?
OOOH i cant wait to hear the answers to that one.
"I hate MS as much as the next slashdotter, but this evil is so bad we do not even wish it upon them. Abuse is abuse."
Your comments are strange, I'm certain Microsoft are not feeling sorry for themselves, they understand the nature of the game they are playing, why would people feel sorry for them?? They *wanted* it this way, and now they have it (in the US at least).
Microsoft support software patents of this nature 100%, they placed huge pressure on the EU last year while it was considering whether or not to recognise software patents.
They do this for the simple reason that they may need to one day play the same game.
"If you really want to follow the slashdot paradigm, then mod me down for my pro-ish MS remarks."
LOL, is that the new way of saying "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." That was a sure fire way to get modded up six months ago?
Guess it worked.
Westerners would never act with such mindless hatred like those dirty arabs do
Yes and overthrowing the democratic government in Iran because you didn't like a decision that was made, installing and arming your friend Saddam in Iraq, because of the outcome of your actions in Iran, backing and funding a state that came into being via terrorism in Israel.
Plus all the other meddling and general nasty actions your country has pushed onto much of the world in the last half century, frankly I'm surprised that you don't see more terrorism from South America after your dispicable actions there (though they create most of your really nasty illicit drugs so maybe that's their payback).
A decade ago you were probably at 60/40 for good and bad deeds throughout the world, up from 30/70 in the 70s and 80's now its back down to about 40/60 and looking to decline even further.
Plus i wouldn't call a steady supply of cheap oil (the absolute lifeblood of your economy and way of life) 'nothing'.
The single worst analogy i have *ever* read on this website.
The fact that it currently at +5, when it is so obviously unlike anything to even remotely do with the situation at hand speaks volumes about the rabid fanaticism and desperation of Apple zealots to ensure only good things are ever said about their religion. Truly you make Linux zealots look like intellectual giants.
You people embarrass the rest of us, stop it now.
Oh my goodness,
:)
It never ends does it?
Tell me oh deep and moral oracle...
Where does Apple get it's 'moral authority' from to tell me what i can do with *my* copy of the product that they took *my* cash for AFTER THEY TOOK MY BLOODY MONEY?
If they dont want me to do these things they need to tell me BEFORE they take my money not after, get it?
But thats the thing isn't it? If software companies started making people actually sign real big grown up contracts, instead of these candystore bullshit click-throughs people would actually start treating them like contracts, and most would laugh and laugh and laugh at the utter bullshit that exists within and simply walk. Because to 90% of reasonable people in this world, when they pay for a book, CD, toaster, TV, DVD player or any appliance (which is what normal people see a computer as) if the salesperson tries to make them sign a contract telling them where and how they can use it they will just say fuck off and leave.
Oh yes, and you may shove your warped sense of 'morality' and your hootytooty 'moral superiority' up your arse.
Cheers
Interesting,
Did they tell me that before i bought it?
No?
Then they can get fucked.
My parents were touring through the top end of Australia a popular destination for middle age couples for some strange reason considering it's 90% hot flat baren scrubland. Anywho they were towing a caravan with their Mitsubishi fourwheel drive, top speed on a flat with big-assed caravan.... 115KPH.
Anyway a cop pulls them over 'Sir we have you clocked at 145KPH', which is 30 over the limit which is a hefty fine. In Aus you can demand to see the read out on the display and sure enough it read 145.
Of course this set both my parents off, very respectable middle class individuals feeling the sting of police corruption (as it certainly was), anyway my dad mentioned they were in no hurry, they would be happy to stick around the nearest major town for a few weeks to fight it. He's a been mechanic for thirty years and if they wanted to argue about the top speed capabilities of a two tonne, three litre, 200 horsepower fourwheel drive, while towing a caravan, in front of a magistrate it would suit him just fine.
Of course they let them go, path of least resistance and all that. Now the interesting thing and the reason it *stinks* is about 5 minutes earlier a Telstra van (telecommunication company) had overtaken them and was absolutely screaming down the road, pretty obvious the coppers clocked him (perhaps fined him) then just left the readout up to pin on the next poor bastard they saw.
No real moral to the story, just that the whole speed enforcement system stinks to high hell like an alternative tax collection agency, without the legislation to ensure probity.
I agree that federal governments (well in Australia and i suppose the US as well being similar state vs federal models and all) shouldn't be involved in road building.
:).
They can also give my income taxes back to my state the bastards
But i can't agree that road building should be private, it would be impossible for it to work, who ever gets to own the roads will own the state and country, nobody could possibly afford to buy up the existing property in cities to lay new roads (as if laying asphalt would be more lucrative than the existing structure as well) so competition would be zero. Plus it would be an absolute nightmare to drive anywhere if you had to stick to one companies roads.
But certainly the less each of our federal governments are involved in the better at this point.
Your rant stinks like the new attack of 'moral relativism' that American 'conservatives' have started to throw around at everyone they don't like (themselves being among the worst offenders when it comes to bending their morals).
The idea that unless you're an African villager you can't point out great waste is beyond ridiculous.
Lets try it from a lefties perspective...
Unless you stop using the socialist, nationalised road system, you can't possibly say that Communist Russia was excessive, only someone in libertarian Somalia has the 'moral authority' to say that.
That sit nicely with you?
Of course not, but you will bend your morality to fit your argument anyway, as you have done. Now when some neo greenie comes along in this thread and screams that we *should* be living like African villagers you will argue that he is an extremist and he just goes to show how rediculous 'liberals' are, and you will have snuggly wrapped yourself up in a blanket of self righteousness smirking that your 'right' and everyone else is 'wrong' totally ignoring the issue at hand which doesn't matter just as long as you feel like you have won the argument.
"Now you'll excuse me while I brace for the inevitable modding down into the 10th Circle of Heck to which this post will be subjected."
Oh look you got +5 insightful
Those groupthink borg slashdot nerds must be having a bad day.
Or they don't exist except in your mind.
One of the two i guess.
Your wrong, very wrong
I *do* own the one copy of OSX that i bought, that's right all of it, every.single.byte. There is exactly one legal limit to what i can do with it and that is to redistribute it. If Apple doesn't like that then they will have to stop selling retail, if they want to involve unique contracts in the sale of their product then they can sit me down outlay the contract before me where i will read it and put my signature to it, as with every other company that does not wish their product to conform to the rules of retail selling.
If you bought a book then got home and found inside the front cover it stated 'You may not read this book while sitting on the toilet' I'm quite sure you would ignore it, perhaps getting annoyed at the people crying 'but you must do as it says it's a liiicense it will hurt the authors brand to have there book being read on the toilet'.
There is no difference between an author putting a little note inside the cover and Apple putting a little list inside the program, only to be found *after* i buy the product, it matters none, because:
A) It's mine i own it, you remember those property rights you keep espousing? Well they dont *only* apply to corporations and 'content producers' (though people like you seem to be happy enough for that to change).
B) You can't place restrictions on a purchase after i have given you the money and you have taken it.
C) You can't tell me what to do with something that is *mine*.
D) There was no negotiation regarding the terms of the 'license' (happy fun name for contract), i signed my name to nothing, nor did i verbally agree to anything.
If they don't like the rules of the game, then that's too bad because I'm not interested in changing them just to make you or Apple or happy, I'm not interested in moving into some sort of weird feudal system where i own nothing.
I wonder if you would be so defensive if it was Ford (you may not have this car serviced anywhere but a Ford service centre), or Panasonic (you may not view/listen to any content created by Sony on this appliance) or whoever made your sofa/couch (you may not take photos of this couch) or table (you may not eat mcdonalds food off this table) or bed (you may not have sex in this bed) that was placing these little 'licenses' on their products that you can't see and have no idea about until you got your purchase home?
If not you're just being a fanboy.
-1 stereotypical american misdirected kneejerk hysterics
There's no successful people or businesses in socialist countries, (every first world country except the US), we all live in squalor in our featureless government owned one bedroom flats and eat cold baked beans every night dished out from the government food shelter.
You keep thinking that.
It would seem that these lawyers are the perfect American capitalists, seeing an opportunity to make money and taking it, providing a service that fills the need of their customers. The free market in action yes? They're just businesses after all, isn't it their moral and legal obligation to use every available semi-legal means to make money? So what if someone else gets screwed? They shouldn't be in business if they can't handle it.
Well that's what i hear from the basement dwelling 'libertarians' everytime someone questions a businesses' behaviour on this site, of course that is only until it affects them or something they like, then as with every bovine middle class American (and to some extent UK and Australian) whose greatest test of moral fibre and intestinal fortitude is to keep their flab under half their natural body weight, the deep sense of conviction that forms their ideals bends or is conveniently forgotten for the moment.
The End.
"Violence that begets violence never ends. "
This is not world politics, it's schoolyard bullying, one person is trying to increase his position or boost his little ego by beating up the person he believes is the weakest in the group. If that person smacks the shit out of him, well obviously he wasnt the weakest was he? And next time the bully will go elsewhere.
This is my and i'm sure many many peoples experience in every school in the world.
I swear that the greatest travesty pushed onto their kids by the baby boomers is the idea that "Violence is never the answer". An entire generation of 'bullies' (read assholes) safety was assured when some twit came up with that mindless notion.
To you young fellas out there if some bastard is beating the shit out of you DONT JUST TAKE IT, every person has a natural right to protect themselves. You'll have the element of surprise on your side for the first few swings when you knock his teeth out (dont swing wildly, three or four nice strong jabs to the face will do it).
They would actually be called saboteurs if they only attacked military targets and infrastructure, without casualties being the primary target.
Or that's what they would have been called in more rational times, now maybe they wouldn't because the word doesn't end in 'ist', therefore doesn't fit the requirement to be an western government and mass media approved bogey man.
Anarchist, communist, socialist, pacifist, terrorist, sabotist, hmm doesnt quite work.
"ultimately to convert it to an extreme form of Islam - by force."
You have gone through an exotic array of ways that this group of people will (in your mind) kill a lot of people, but you and your ilk who just love spouting big rhetoric just never quite explain how a small group of individuals are going to forcefully convert 200+ million free individuals to:
A. Their law system
B. Their religion
The first requires the total destruction of all civilian institions in your country the second is impossible.
If it was a large nation state like say China or Russia then yes it's possible that after a large nuclear war they may be left with enough army to invade and after decades of fighting force there way of life temporarily upon parts of your country, but you're trying to say that a loose-knit handful of mostly poor arabs are going to do the same? When they can't even do it to a country that is one tenth the size, one tenth the population and political stability of yours, that they share a border with AND have the backing of coventional armies AND hate the most??
Perhaps you should get your head out of the Tom Clancy novels, your hand off your cock, and come back to reality for just a minute or two.
Tell me oh wise +4 insightful
How could a group of thugs force a nation of 200 million to accept a particular law and value system. Do they have the ability to overthrow your government and civilian institutions, gain control of the military and force that system onto your country, something that right now requires the active participation of about 5-10 million people, OOOORRR, do they have an army big enough to replace your army with theirs, suppress the poplution and insert there own government, OOOOORRRRRR, are you just being a big fat fucking shrill pussy alarmist?
People have died for liberty since time began what makes YOU so special?
Nothing, less than nothing considering what an obvious coward you are (oh the big bad anarc^H^H^Hcommu^H^H^H^terrorists are coming to eat our babies!!!). Get a grip.
With a dozen cars screaming down the road, once it gets to that stage (where there is enough cars to head it off, lay spikes, etc) the chase would have gone on for far to long and have put dozens if not hundreds of lives in immediate mortal danger.
Being that a chase will usually start when a single patrol car tries to stop someone and they take off, the moment the runner floors it, shoot this sucker and thats it. No need for a dozen cars hurtling through populated streets at rediculous speeds chasing someone of unknown driving ability and unknown state of mind (except absolutely pumping with adrenaline, thus ensuring tunnel vision and criticaly poor decision making abilities).
The greatest benefit? Innocent people wont die because the police where trying to arrest someone.
"If the police pursue a criminal in a high speed chase and someone else gets hurt as a result of it, the police have a good chance of being sued"
Why not concentrate on the fact that someone innocent has been hurt or killed? Isn't that enough? Is the only way to create the appearance of value in the minds of people to attach an economic value? Is it only useful if it can reduce the potential for litigation? WTF is wrong with western society right now?
Offtopic, there is plenty of times that the cops just need to back off a little and risk losing the joyrider, speeder, etc but ensure the safety of those around, when they push on irregardless (often fueled by testosterone) and an innocent person dies then it's perfectly reasonable for the cops to be held accountable *as any normal person would be if their direct actions resulted in killing or maiming someone, even if well intentioned*. And before the twits come, yes, as with anything there are exceptions blah blah blah.