WHEREAS, plaintiffs United States of America ("United States") and the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin and defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment;
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law; "
where they encourage the killing of female infants, the execution of dissidents (not POW's, or even SUSPECTED POW's, just people the government doesn't like) and the squelching of free expression and religious freedom?
You didn't get modded down because people disagree, you got modded down cause you're a delusional apologist who's too stupid to do any fact checking.
And as an aside, no one gives a shit what you think.
'If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation'
I'll be as harsh as I damned well please. If your JOB is to enforce the law, and you don't even bother to TRY and understand it, you deserve everything you get.
"However, NO FALLOUT WAS EVER RELEASED FROM THE FACILITY. The facility was 100% lost, but everyone was safe that was not inside the plant."
The reason you got modded troll is because YOU TYPED THE CENTRAL POINT OF YOUR POST IN CAPS, emphasizing it.
You should have been modded -1 incredibly fucking stupid, but the absence of such a modifier means people have to make do.
Seriously, if you don't know the difference between 3 mile island and Chernobyl well enough that you noticed your colossally moronic mistake as soon as you wrote it, then you need to refrain from posting until you learn HOW TO LOOK SHIT UP.
And do it BEFORE YOU GO OFF TYPING YOUR MISTAKES IN CAPS.
"Only problem is that most of those "common compounds" are in fact hydrocarbons. So you (a) do little to solve the fossil fuel dependency"
S-U-G-A-R. MOST of the bacteria convert sugar and starch to hydrogen. If you can explain why this will not help solve the "hydrocarbon" problem, I'm listening. Truthfully, I think you're regurgitating information that you didn't bother to actually look up.
"(b) still end up releasing large quanitities of CO or CO2 into the atmosphere."
No, this is wrong too, but for a different reason. You're assuming an open system where byproducts are vented into the atmosphere, but that's a dumb idea, and a decent engineer wouldn't wast a valuable resource like CO2, especially since it could be used to help grow the plants that the sugar is made from.
Because you're a moron who doesn't read for meaning.
Read it again. Then read it again. Then get someone smarter than you, and have them read it VERY S-L-O-W-L-Y to you.
The quote was discussing 2005 revenues. It ALSO discussed nominated films, whic if you'd been paying attention, WASN'T THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION. There was NO ANALOGY AT ALL, just you reading part of a quote and thinking (erroneously) that you were reading the part that mattered.
You weren't.
So top being such a dick, especially when you've made such a silly mistake.
There are laws that apply locally as well, but they obviously vary from state to state.
From wiki
"United States
Main article: Freedom of information in the United States
In the United States the Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966 and went into effect the following year. The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments were signed by President Bill Clinton on October 2, 1996.
The Act applies only to federal agencies. However, all of the states, as well as the District of Columbia and some territories, have enacted similar statutes to require disclosures by agencies of the state and of local governments, though some are significantly broader than others. Many combine this with Open Meetings legislation, which requires government meetings to be held publicly."
Once again I have stymied ignorance. You're welcome.
DID YOU GET THAT? WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MAJORITY.
Why is that SO difficult for you to get? That people can criticize some people without lumping them together? Is it becuase you're incapable of such sophisticated thinking, so you assume everyone else is as unsophisticated as you?
We're talking about the ones who are actually doing what we're denouncing.
So in the future, when you feel the urge to defend the majority, make sure we're denouncing the majority before you waste your time.
"No - yet "we" seem to group them, as a whole, into the "potential terrorist" category."
NO, as I said to you before, that's a made up stupid ass argument that detracts from the discussion. YOU group them into that category, at or at least it appears you do by your constant assertions that "we" do. WE don't.
"And while we're at it, maybe we should stop invading countries in the ME, killing their friends and families and lying about the reasons?"
And finally the truth, you think "we" deserve their enmity.
Perhaps if you weren't so busy assuming everyone is as closed-minded and reactionary as you, you'd realize that
A) these problems existed before there were any western powers in the Middle East.
B) executing little girls for being raped isn't the fault of the West. Nor are any of the anti-human rights stances taken by devout beleivers of islam. That's JUST islam. JUST the religion and its followers.
Maybe you should get your face out of muslim ass and honestly criticise them instead of making up arguments to detract from the issues.
This is the last roll I'll feed today, but either you're intentionally ignoring it, or you're a moron. Or both.
HYPOCRISY
"The christians I know..."
And that's where all your credibility goes out the window. You DO NOT get to make a statement like that after taking a position like this
"you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
You denounce people for judging based on a "few" people, then make judgements based on "the Christians you know". DO YOU KNOW THEM ALL? Then you're a fucking hypocrite, because YOU judged based on the few Christians YOU know.
LIE
"How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?"
REALLY? REALLY? So, muslims are ok with gays then? Oh wait, that's wrong too..."
Muslims are against homosexuality too. So your statement that "there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?" is a lie.
The worst part is, it's obvious, yet you're too biased and self-righteous to see (or admit) it.
"The current clash has very little to do with the (very provocative) pictures and a LOT to do with the current world hatred of moslems (grouping them all together as potential terrorists)"
Speak for yourself. I don't group muslims together as terrorists, so this bias is yours.
What I do attribute to muslims as a group is their backward, primitive stance towards women's rights and their insitence on using government insitutions to further their beliefs.
Stop playing the persecution card, it won't work when the persecuted are beheading female journalists, executing female children for being raped, and denying fundamental rights to half of the population.
And please no "yeah but what about the US..." screeds. This article isn't about the US, so save that tired crap for someother time when it'll better serve your karma whoring.
That do stupid things like compare Abortion clinics to cartoons.
While the Christian nuts are also, well nutty, WE KNOW THAT.
So what was your point? To demonstrate that you find equivalency between a group that violently protests what they percieve as murder (I disagree, and think they're nuts) and a group the violenty protests WOMEN'S RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, and fucking CARTOONS.
"Neither, and these are the only real choices. (ie. choices of voting that might actually change the government in power) That, my friend, is a real grade AAAAA+++ fallacy."
I think it's called a false dichotomy, but why you use it then point out your use of it has confused me.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why does the final settlement say this
"FINAL JUDGMENT
(November 12, 2002)
WHEREAS, plaintiffs United States of America ("United States") and the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin and defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment;
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law; "
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm
Read, be enlightened, then stop spreading your opinion as though it were fact.
Liar
where they encourage the killing of female infants, the execution of dissidents (not POW's, or even SUSPECTED POW's, just people the government doesn't like) and the squelching of free expression and religious freedom?
You didn't get modded down because people disagree, you got modded down cause you're a delusional apologist who's too stupid to do any fact checking.
And as an aside, no one gives a shit what you think.
"but it also means that they didn't prove that it is not harmful."
Do I need to tell you why this statement is dumb, or can I trust you to educate yourself?
Hint: proving a negative...
"Comparing wi-fi to radio waves is completely ridiculous, as they are different wavelengths"
When you're wrong? Why assume such a pompous attitude when a simple wikipedia check would have led you to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves
And a quick examination would have revealed that 2.4 Ghz is in the UHF range.
It's ok if you're wrong, but make sure you're right before you start telling people their posts are "ridiculous".
'If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation'
"Don't be overly harsh."
I'll be as harsh as I damned well please. If your JOB is to enforce the law, and you don't even bother to TRY and understand it, you deserve everything you get.
"However, NO FALLOUT WAS EVER RELEASED FROM THE FACILITY. The facility was 100% lost, but everyone was safe that was not inside the plant."
The reason you got modded troll is because YOU TYPED THE CENTRAL POINT OF YOUR POST IN CAPS, emphasizing it.
You should have been modded -1 incredibly fucking stupid, but the absence of such a modifier means people have to make do.
Seriously, if you don't know the difference between 3 mile island and Chernobyl well enough that you noticed your colossally moronic mistake as soon as you wrote it, then you need to refrain from posting until you learn HOW TO LOOK SHIT UP.
And do it BEFORE YOU GO OFF TYPING YOUR MISTAKES IN CAPS.
"Only problem is that most of those "common compounds" are in fact hydrocarbons. So you (a) do little to solve the fossil fuel dependency"
S-U-G-A-R. MOST of the bacteria convert sugar and starch to hydrogen. If you can explain why this will not help solve the "hydrocarbon" problem, I'm listening. Truthfully, I think you're regurgitating information that you didn't bother to actually look up.
"(b) still end up releasing large quanitities of CO or CO2 into the atmosphere."
No, this is wrong too, but for a different reason. You're assuming an open system where byproducts are vented into the atmosphere, but that's a dumb idea, and a decent engineer wouldn't wast a valuable resource like CO2, especially since it could be used to help grow the plants that the sugar is made from.
Your arguments have no merit.
Dude, get over yourself.
If you can't explain the concept simply, you don't understand it well enough.
And seriously, "theocratic medium"?
God you're a pompous asshole.
If you have to debate whether something is a sport, it's not.
Because you're a moron who doesn't read for meaning.
Read it again. Then read it again. Then get someone smarter than you, and have them read it VERY S-L-O-W-L-Y to you.
The quote was discussing 2005 revenues. It ALSO discussed nominated films, whic if you'd been paying attention, WASN'T THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION. There was NO ANALOGY AT ALL, just you reading part of a quote and thinking (erroneously) that you were reading the part that mattered.
You weren't.
So top being such a dick, especially when you've made such a silly mistake.
You're wrong.
"As I understand it, FOIA requests..."
apply to FEDERAL government, not state and local.
There are laws that apply locally as well, but they obviously vary from state to state.
From wiki
"United States
Main article: Freedom of information in the United States
In the United States the Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966 and went into effect the following year. The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments were signed by President Bill Clinton on October 2, 1996.
The Act applies only to federal agencies. However, all of the states, as well as the District of Columbia and some territories, have enacted similar statutes to require disclosures by agencies of the state and of local governments, though some are significantly broader than others. Many combine this with Open Meetings legislation, which requires government meetings to be held publicly."
Once again I have stymied ignorance. You're welcome.
"That's why we call them JUDGES - we elect them to use their judgement."
And what about the judges who are appointed?
Then why did she get outplayed by the weasel?
Why wasn't she smart enough to keep her bitchy attitude out of email (where it will live forever)?
Why wasn't she smart enough to get her offer in writing, so they couldn't change it later?
I said this before
"The worst part is, it's obvious, yet you're too biased and self-righteous to see (or admit) it."
And you proved me correct.
Thanks for that, save the rest for someone who gives a shit what hypocritical liars think.
So stop with that tired old line.
DID YOU GET THAT? WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MAJORITY.
Why is that SO difficult for you to get? That people can criticize some people without lumping them together? Is it becuase you're incapable of such sophisticated thinking, so you assume everyone else is as unsophisticated as you?
We're talking about the ones who are actually doing what we're denouncing.
So in the future, when you feel the urge to defend the majority, make sure we're denouncing the majority before you waste your time.
"No - yet "we" seem to group them, as a whole, into the "potential terrorist" category."
NO, as I said to you before, that's a made up stupid ass argument that detracts from the discussion. YOU group them into that category, at or at least it appears you do by your constant assertions that "we" do. WE don't.
"And while we're at it, maybe we should stop invading countries in the ME, killing their friends and families and lying about the reasons?"
And finally the truth, you think "we" deserve their enmity.
Perhaps if you weren't so busy assuming everyone is as closed-minded and reactionary as you, you'd realize that
A) these problems existed before there were any western powers in the Middle East.
B) executing little girls for being raped isn't the fault of the West. Nor are any of the anti-human rights stances taken by devout beleivers of islam. That's JUST islam. JUST the religion and its followers.
Maybe you should get your face out of muslim ass and honestly criticise them instead of making up arguments to detract from the issues.
This is the last roll I'll feed today, but either you're intentionally ignoring it, or you're a moron. Or both.
HYPOCRISY
"The christians I know..."
And that's where all your credibility goes out the window. You DO NOT get to make a statement like that after taking a position like this
"you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
You denounce people for judging based on a "few" people, then make judgements based on "the Christians you know". DO YOU KNOW THEM ALL? Then you're a fucking hypocrite, because YOU judged based on the few Christians YOU know.
LIE
"How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?"
REALLY? REALLY? So, muslims are ok with gays then? Oh wait, that's wrong too..."
Muslims are against homosexuality too. So your statement that "there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?" is a lie.
The worst part is, it's obvious, yet you're too biased and self-righteous to see (or admit) it.
I made a legitimate point, and your cowardly asses modded it down.
Stop being such a pathetic group of assholes and SAY what you object to.
Modding me down because you dislike what I had to say, and how strongly I say it, is really fucking sad.
Of course, not one pices of trash that actually modded will own up. They're too impressed with their own power to actually think before exercising it.
Murder because you believe you're saving life IS NOT equvalent to murder because you DON'T LIKE A CARTOON.
They're both horrible, but equivalent? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
"The current clash has very little to do with the (very provocative) pictures and a LOT to do with the current world hatred of moslems (grouping them all together as potential terrorists)"
Speak for yourself. I don't group muslims together as terrorists, so this bias is yours.
What I do attribute to muslims as a group is their backward, primitive stance towards women's rights and their insitence on using government insitutions to further their beliefs.
Stop playing the persecution card, it won't work when the persecuted are beheading female journalists, executing female children for being raped, and denying fundamental rights to half of the population.
And please no "yeah but what about the US..." screeds. This article isn't about the US, so save that tired crap for someother time when it'll better serve your karma whoring.
"The comparison of firebombing of abortion clinic and assassination of doctors is perfectly..." wrong.
In that case individuals think they're protecting life.
Muslims were OFFENDED by a CARTOON. They're OFFENDED by women voting. Or showing themselves in public. Or driving.
Yeah, they're equivalent...
And, quite frankly a liar.
"I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."
Just so I'm clear, you're making the case that ALL of the people involved in the cartoon protests constitute a "few people". Maybe I made a mistake.
"First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
Nope, I guess I was right.
A few generally means three or four, but could mean more I guess. NOT five hundred thousand.
So stop saying we're judging based on a few people. That's wrong.
"The christians I know..."
And that's where all your credibility goes out the window. You DO NOT get to make a statement like that after taking a position like this
"you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
Then there's this tidbit
"How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?"
REALLY? REALLY? So, muslims are ok with gays then? Oh wait, that's wrong too...
So, your facts are wrong, you're arguments are hypocritical, and you lie.
How long till you run for office?
That do stupid things like compare Abortion clinics to cartoons.
While the Christian nuts are also, well nutty, WE KNOW THAT.
So what was your point? To demonstrate that you find equivalency between a group that violently protests what they percieve as murder (I disagree, and think they're nuts) and a group the violenty protests WOMEN'S RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, and fucking CARTOONS.
Get some fucking perspective.
"Neither, and these are the only real choices. (ie. choices of voting that might actually change the government in power) That, my friend, is a real grade AAAAA+++ fallacy."
I think it's called a false dichotomy, but why you use it then point out your use of it has confused me.