Yes, I know. Then there was al sorts of silliness about enemies not trusting the US and why the US doesn't care.
That's part of the problem, nobody trusts the US as they've proved themselves pretty untrustworthy in the past. And the US is probably right not trust anybody else, because everybody else is probably waiting for an oportunity to shaft them back.
Personally, I doubt that the US could remotely disable the systems through software alone, but maybe examination of the source could reveal whether the US had the duplicity to provide for disabling it through the hardware.
No, I perfectly willing to concede that there might be historical reasons for requiring the military to support one or other political party in countries like Angola and Zimbabwe.
I'm just pointing out that requiring the US military to support the political party currently in power is possibly not worthy of a democratic country.
because that's what made the Vietnam war fail in the end
You imply that the Vietnam war was winnable.
To me, a modern army should be capable of formulating their individual political leanings, irrespective of who's giving the orders, a Democrat or a Republican.
The idea that you can only trust a soldier of a particular political leaning seems to me to be symptomatic of Bush's leadership.
Moreover, if you look at armies in Africa like those in Angola or Zimbabwe, the troops are expected to toe the party line, their required loyalty is to the Government, not to the people.
Is it not a bit of a wakeup call to see the same requirements in force in the US Military?
Gosh, I don't believe that someone will actually read this
In South Africa I have a hard cap of 3 gig for which I pay around 40 US (250 SA Rand)to the ISP every month. Additionally I pay the Telkom company another 47 US (295 SA Rand) in addition to the 16 US (100 Rand) I pay for line rental.
If the cap is breached, that's it, no more connection until the next month
NOBODY around here uses an insecure wifi for very long.
Well, not just a Microsoft vs Linux issue, but a Microsoft vs Open Source Issue as well.
Microsoft is saying (by implication) that open source is riddle with plagiarism filched from others' IP.
I mean, if it's free, they must've got it from somewhere, right?
So, sooner or later, I guess, the real owner is going to sue the end user for theft.
From TFA: Customers understand the value proposition of open source. They are smart enough to understand that rumours of these so called litigation risks floating around is in fact FUD circulated by companies with vested interests -- a last ditch effort to slow the open source momentum down
I wouldn't be so sure.
The suits who sign the budgets would probably feel it's wiser to stay with Microsoft.
Well, at least those verses are quite clear:
Not really sure I agree with you. Seems there are an awful lot of ifs and buts. The Father and the Mother have to say that he's a glutton and a drunkard, what if he's one and not the other? What if he obeys his father, but not his mother?
Furthermore there's nothing to say that the stoning is actually required, just that it *shall* happen.
Just that, if the elders deem it necessary, the rebellious son shall be made an example of so that all Isreal shall hear and fear
In terms of the motivation for suicide bombing, I would suppose the same motivation exists in conventional warefare where soldiers are prepared to put their lives on the line for their comrades. It's just if you have a religious context whereby your life doesn't actually end, it is merely moved to another phase (with an improved impetus as a result of your action), then you are more likely to be prepared to sacrifice yourself.
My own review of the Islamic doctrine throws up a highly contradictory work but one which is supposed to have God's direct input.
The Bible's contradictions carry no such certainty. (With the exception of the commandments).
So, whereas the Bible can be passed off as an interpretive work, the Koran is authorative. And, on top of that, the apparent contradictions in the Koran mean that Islamic religious leaders have complete control over their meaning.
Yes, okay, but the bible is open to interpretation, isn't it?
I mean you can use it to justify just about anything.
The commandments, on the other hand, are immutable, they were given to Moses as tablets which were written by God.
Apart from that, just about everything is open to interpretation.
And, just as the commandments are direct communication from God, the Koran is supposed to have a similar providence.
I suppose that is why it is so easy for the Mullahs to raise volunteers for suicide missions.
The Koran will often say two contradictory things (remember there is no logical or chronological order), depending on the Prophet's situation at the time of writing.
My point in the post above is that the Koran should not (as the direct word of God) be open to such contradictory intepretations.
So, obviously, the faithfull must rely on the Mullahs to point the way.
It's this dichotomy in Islam which seems so, well, contradictory.
There are calls within the Koran for the killing of infidels and calls for the faithfull to live in peace with them depending in which phase of the prophet's life they were written. But isn't the Koran the direct word of God? Surely, then, it's immutable? Presumably God does not keep changing his mind?
The Prophet is portrayed as an ordinary man, not the son of God. Yet cartoons portraying the Prophet lead to riots and killings and assasinations. On the one hand, he is a man, on the other it is not permitted to depict him?
On the one hand an Ayatollah can command the death of Salman Rushie and state that it's every Muslim's duty to carry this out, on the other hand every Muslim has the choice to ingore any fatwa he likes.
As for the treatment of women, well that's the most confusing of all.
As for Rumsveld's propoganda requirements, it's like pro-holocaust writings in Isreal.
Don't you feel that the Americans, in particular Multimillionaire US fashion designer Marc Ecko are seeking to export their culture to the rest of the world?
Personally, I'm a bit fed up of teenage hoodies hanging around on street corners saying "Yaah, wa's up bro'" and shaking two fingers of their right hands at me, wrist first.
Is that what US culture is all about?
Still, it does smack of overkill.
Maybe putting "THIS GAME IS PROMOTED BY A PROMINANT US FASHION GURU" on it would do the trick?
Slashdot Mirror
"Small wonder our enemies don't trust us."
Yes, I know. Then there was al sorts of silliness about enemies not trusting the US and why the US doesn't care.
That's part of the problem, nobody trusts the US as they've proved themselves pretty untrustworthy in the past. And the US is probably right not trust anybody else, because everybody else is probably waiting for an oportunity to shaft them back.
Personally, I doubt that the US could remotely disable the systems through software alone, but maybe examination of the source could reveal whether the US had the duplicity to provide for disabling it through the hardware.
Alright then, as a UK citizen (I presume that is the point of your post) do you consider that the Americans are right not to trust the UK?
Well, so who DOES trust you?
How many enemies do you think you have?
How many friends? (apart from Israel).
Do you consider the UK to be friends? Obviously not.
Yeah, they're guilty
String 'em up!
He's hiding something.
Off to Guantanamo with you, buddy.
ah, shit, I mentioned Guantanamo (twice!), d'yer think they'll log this post and use my IP to find me and remove my hardware?
That is like blaming the sheep for the herder.
Very interesting metaphore.
Quite apt.
No, I perfectly willing to concede that there might be historical reasons for requiring the military to support one or other political party in countries like Angola and Zimbabwe.
I'm just pointing out that requiring the US military to support the political party currently in power is possibly not worthy of a democratic country.
But I'm sure you would disagree.
I'm really, really impressed!
No, really.
You started off arguing very convincingly that Bush is a liar.
In the end you're arguing about a dog.
Now I KNOW why Bush is in power.
because that's what made the Vietnam war fail in the end
You imply that the Vietnam war was winnable.
To me, a modern army should be capable of formulating their individual political leanings, irrespective of who's giving the orders, a Democrat or a Republican.
The idea that you can only trust a soldier of a particular political leaning seems to me to be symptomatic of Bush's leadership.
Moreover, if you look at armies in Africa like those in Angola or Zimbabwe, the troops are expected to toe the party line, their required loyalty is to the Government, not to the people.
Is it not a bit of a wakeup call to see the same requirements in force in the US Military?
Gosh, I don't believe that someone will actually read this
Seems that they actually did.
Buddy, believe me, you don't want this.
In South Africa I have a hard cap of 3 gig for which I pay around 40 US (250 SA Rand)to the ISP every month. Additionally I pay the Telkom company another 47 US (295 SA Rand) in addition to the 16 US (100 Rand) I pay for line rental.
If the cap is breached, that's it, no more connection until the next month
NOBODY around here uses an insecure wifi for very long.
hate mail to my Senators.
I don't think they'd care.
They've already got "your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle."
Try South Africa.
In terms of Personal Liberties the individual seems to have a lot more freedom there.
Ok, and how is this a Microsoft vs Linux Issue?
Well, not just a Microsoft vs Linux issue, but a Microsoft vs Open Source Issue as well.Microsoft is saying (by implication) that open source is riddle with plagiarism filched from others' IP.
I mean, if it's free, they must've got it from somewhere, right?
So, sooner or later, I guess, the real owner is going to sue the end user for theft.
From TFA:
Customers understand the value proposition of open source. They are smart enough to understand that rumours of these so called litigation risks floating around is in fact FUD circulated by companies with vested interests -- a last ditch effort to slow the open source momentum down
I wouldn't be so sure.
The suits who sign the budgets would probably feel it's wiser to stay with Microsoft.
Hate breeds hate.
Ah! this shows a fundamental cultural difference.
Among Christians, the reverse *should* be true; the Christian should "turn the other cheek" according to the teachings of Christ..
I've read quite a bit on this debate which has been very lively.
There has been a lot about how Westerners should understand and respect Muslim culture, very little on how Muslims should understand Danish culture.
No, but that is what I find so interesting.
/>.
Clearly God *couln't* have written it directly, because, as we know, God never changes his mind. <Deliberate-sleight-of-hand
so by extension the people claiming to speak for god must then be listened to and obeyed the same as god might.
Well first we have to make sure that this claim is true.
In the case of the Prophet, there are some 1.6 billion muslims most of whom must believe this. So it must be true.
Presumably God dictated it word for word in English to the committee preparing the King James version.
Yes, Muslims believe, that the Koran has the same provenance.
And therein lies the danger.
To get back to Rumsfeld's propoganda agenda, it would seem that it can only work if the Islamic religious leaders back it.
I dunno. Do you think that's likely?
Well, at least those verses are quite clear:
Not really sure I agree with you. Seems there are an awful lot of ifs and buts. The Father and the Mother have to say that he's a glutton and a drunkard, what if he's one and not the other? What if he obeys his father, but not his mother?
Furthermore there's nothing to say that the stoning is actually required, just that it *shall* happen.
Just that, if the elders deem it necessary, the rebellious son shall be made an example of so that all Isreal shall hear and fear
In terms of the motivation for suicide bombing, I would suppose the same motivation exists in conventional warefare where soldiers are prepared to put their lives on the line for their comrades. It's just if you have a religious context whereby your life doesn't actually end, it is merely moved to another phase (with an improved impetus as a result of your action), then you are more likely to be prepared to sacrifice yourself.
My own review of the Islamic doctrine throws up a highly contradictory work but one which is supposed to have God's direct input.
The Bible's contradictions carry no such certainty. (With the exception of the commandments).
So, whereas the Bible can be passed off as an interpretive work, the Koran is authorative. And, on top of that, the apparent contradictions in the Koran mean that Islamic religious leaders have complete control over their meaning.
Yow!
You actually SAW the cartoons?
Closest I came was to see the bbc article
Yes, okay, but the bible is open to interpretation, isn't it?
I mean you can use it to justify just about anything.
The commandments, on the other hand, are immutable, they were given to Moses as tablets which were written by God.
Apart from that, just about everything is open to interpretation.
And, just as the commandments are direct communication from God, the Koran is supposed to have a similar providence.
I suppose that is why it is so easy for the Mullahs to raise volunteers for suicide missions.
The Koran will often say two contradictory things (remember there is no logical or chronological order), depending on the Prophet's situation at the time of writing.
My point in the post above is that the Koran should not (as the direct word of God) be open to such contradictory intepretations.
So, obviously, the faithfull must rely on the Mullahs to point the way.
It's this dichotomy in Islam which seems so, well, contradictory.
.....Hell, did I just invoke Godwin?
There are calls within the Koran for the killing of infidels and calls for the faithfull to live in peace with them depending in which phase of the prophet's life they were written. But isn't the Koran the direct word of God? Surely, then, it's immutable? Presumably God does not keep changing his mind?
The Prophet is portrayed as an ordinary man, not the son of God. Yet cartoons portraying the Prophet lead to riots and killings and assasinations. On the one hand, he is a man, on the other it is not permitted to depict him?
On the one hand an Ayatollah can command the death of Salman Rushie and state that it's every Muslim's duty to carry this out, on the other hand every Muslim has the choice to ingore any fatwa he likes.
As for the treatment of women, well that's the most confusing of all.
As for Rumsveld's propoganda requirements, it's like pro-holocaust writings in Isreal.
I once had a sociable conversation with a policeman in the UK after a game of cricket.
Said policeman told me of a criminal that he had planted evidence on.
I said: "You fitted this person up?"
"No, no," He says, "We don't fit innocent people up."
I've already got four cameras in my house.
That's um, quite pervy.
Couldn't the Authorities subpoena their content if they needed to?
The American People stood up to tyrants once, a very long time ago.
Once?
A very long time ago?
Yes, I suppose that makes sense.
The point is that Australia has a government trying its damnedest to be as stupid as the American government.
Yes?
Last I heard the American Government wasn't trying to ban this game?
Mind you, I could be wrong......
Well, as I see it Australia is much like US #2.
Yes, and isn't that the point?
Don't you feel that the Americans, in particular Multimillionaire US fashion designer Marc Ecko are seeking to export their culture to the rest of the world?
Personally, I'm a bit fed up of teenage hoodies hanging around on street corners saying "Yaah, wa's up bro'" and shaking two fingers of their right hands at me, wrist first.
Is that what US culture is all about?
Still, it does smack of overkill.
Maybe putting "THIS GAME IS PROMOTED BY A PROMINANT US FASHION GURU" on it would do the trick?