The US doesn't threaten them because they are allies, the moment Pakistan stops cooperating with the "war on terror" the media and government will be just as hostile to them as we are to Iran.
Nonsense. Pakistan had nukes long before they started cooperating with the "war on terror".
Appeasement didn't work because Germany was trying to expand its borders, not simply maintain a military. Iran is not trying to expand its rule, Iran just wants to have a larger military force.
So let me get this straight... you've got a document guaranteeing peace in our time? Peace, with honour?
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
- Adolf Hitler
In fact, treaties from WWI that prevented Germany from having a strong military force was the very reason Hitler could rise to power
Right. Because, without those treaties, the peace-loving German people would have elected Ghandi, and made Judaism the official state religion.
The fact that this got "+5 Insightful" instead of "-5 Gibbering Twit" is really, really sad. Slashdot has always had a certain bias, politically, but it used to be filled with fairly intelligent and rational individuals. I guess that time has passed.
It's there because it's an effective way to fill the pews. It goes something like this:
1. Make people ashamed of something that we all do. 2. Tell them that Magic Man is going to punish them if they don't repent. 3. Pass the collection plate. 4. Profit!
They don't promise that the websites you visit will be free of ads, either. Likewise, your phone company doesn't say anything about how often you might get a call from a telemarketer, or how often the person you're trying to call may be unavailable. There's a huge difference between expecting your access provider to guarantee their service, and expecting them to guarantee the availability or quality (subjective) of the content transmitted over their service.
It's dishonest and intended to rip off the customer. They don't promise to give you "up to 500 TV channels" - they structure it so that you pay for what you want. Bandwidth should be held to the same standards.
Which doesn't stop anyone from using the original concept. Which you may have noticed through the wide availability of no-name pharmaceuticals on the market.
If you would like to see a detailed case study of an experiment into this effect, please look up "America"
Or, you know, you could maybe try traveling to America. Only I don't think you're allowed to board a plane while your head is still wedged in your ass.
"at the same time allows users to security use normal web browsers and network applications." "Haystack hides traffic to any from the internet at large inside traffic " "The executable is under half a megabytes " "We would like to see our as many people as possible assert their human right to free expression." "revealing the source code at this time would only aide the authorities"
Plus their FAQ logo actually says QFA. If they pay so little attention to detail on their site, I can just imagine what the program must be like. It probably has some bug that accidentally sends your name, phone number, physical address, and all e-mail correspondence directly to the mullahs.
Iranian law is pretty tough on smut.... death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies....
Meh. This is Iran we're talking about. I'm pretty sure they have the death penalty for driving without a seatbelt. A law isn't considered "tough" there unless the punishment involves teeth pulling and genital mutilation.
We didn't give Japan much "dignity" either, but they turned out just fine. On the other hand, we gave North Korea plenty of "dignity".....
The idea that WW2 might never have happened if it weren't for the conditions imposed on Germany after WW1 is fun to think about, but is rather simplistic, and not at all realistic.
The Wikipedia article seems heavily slanted. It diligently lists all the problems the UN inspectors faced, but avoids mentioning their main conclusion. Let's go to some sources.
Neither of your sources support your conclusion. Both of them quote just one individual, speaking after the fact about what he supposedly knew before the war. If that's the best you can find, then you have no case.
You're missing the point. The question was if people, outside of the Bush administration, doubted the claims of WMDs even before the war. And they did. To many outsiders, it was perfectly clear how ridiculous the claims were.
No, the question was whether or not it was "obvious" to "most outside observers". Now you're moving the goalposts by talking about "people" doubting the claim, or "many outsiders" thinking the claims were ridiculous. I suppose if by "many" you mean "a significant minority", then sure. Hell, "many" people are still convinced we didn't land on the moon. For any event you're going to have some portion of the populace which is opposed to the popular consensus. If that's all that you want to claim, then fine: I agree. If, on the other hand, you're still trying to claim that most people knew that Iraq didn't have "WMD" prior to the invasion, you've done absolutely nothing to support that contention.
Of course. The really important stuff will get saved. Some of the background noise will also survive, just due to the curiosity of historians and archivists. The rest will be flushed or just lost with time. Status quo - no change over what we have from past generations. The only difference is that our population is so much bigger, and our archival methods so much better, that the sheer quantity of saved data is bound to be much higher. But the idea that EVERYTHING we generate will be archived forever? Please. If I thought that was the case, I'd be much more careful about the comments I make on here:)
I'm sorry, but I think Oz itself is a major cause of bushfires. When a bucket of water left out in the sun causes your back-yard to catch fire, you might want to consider blaming the locale.
I just can't believe that those damn scienticians keep rejecting the Time Cube Universe. Clearly there must be a conspiracy in the journals to prevent Mr. Ray from publishing his groundbreaking discoveries.
Slashdot Mirror
The US doesn't threaten them because they are allies, the moment Pakistan stops cooperating with the "war on terror" the media and government will be just as hostile to them as we are to Iran.
Nonsense. Pakistan had nukes long before they started cooperating with the "war on terror".
Appeasement didn't work because Germany was trying to expand its borders, not simply maintain a military. Iran is not trying to expand its rule, Iran just wants to have a larger military force.
So let me get this straight ... you've got a document guaranteeing peace in our time? Peace, with honour?
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
- Adolf Hitler
In fact, treaties from WWI that prevented Germany from having a strong military force was the very reason Hitler could rise to power
Right. Because, without those treaties, the peace-loving German people would have elected Ghandi, and made Judaism the official state religion.
Well they arrested some US soldiers that were bouncing around in their coastal waters and then, er, gave them back a few days later after questioning.
No, they didn't.
End result: A country that doesn't have to do what you tell it to. And that's a big problem when you want to dominate the area.
Garbage. Most of the countries in the area can ignore US demands. Hell, Saudi Arabia can pretty much dictate terms to the yanks at this point.
The fact that this got "+5 Insightful" instead of "-5 Gibbering Twit" is really, really sad. Slashdot has always had a certain bias, politically, but it used to be filled with fairly intelligent and rational individuals. I guess that time has passed.
But how will I know they're not just knocking at my door out of a desire to make my acquaintance?
Easy. If they use your door knocker, they want to make your acquaintance. If they bring their own, they're coming for more than tea and crumpets.
It's there because it's an effective way to fill the pews. It goes something like this:
1. Make people ashamed of something that we all do.
2. Tell them that Magic Man is going to punish them if they don't repent.
3. Pass the collection plate.
4. Profit!
No "????" required.
They don't promise that the websites you visit will be free of ads, either. Likewise, your phone company doesn't say anything about how often you might get a call from a telemarketer, or how often the person you're trying to call may be unavailable. There's a huge difference between expecting your access provider to guarantee their service, and expecting them to guarantee the availability or quality (subjective) of the content transmitted over their service.
It's dishonest and intended to rip off the customer. They don't promise to give you "up to 500 TV channels" - they structure it so that you pay for what you want. Bandwidth should be held to the same standards.
Your definition of "don't worry" intrigues me. I would like to learn more.
What about the Americans? Will we develop a fuel based on Budweiser or Tequila?
Nope, you've already contributed your fuel idea: French Fry Grease
Which doesn't stop anyone from using the original concept. Which you may have noticed through the wide availability of no-name pharmaceuticals on the market.
If you would like to see a detailed case study of an experiment into this effect, please look up "America"
Or, you know, you could maybe try traveling to America. Only I don't think you're allowed to board a plane while your head is still wedged in your ass.
lol. yep, it's those damn masons, at it again!
I didn't do all that well in history class, but I'm fairly sure that Newton died more than 20 years ago.
Check out their FAQ:
"at the same time allows users to security use normal web browsers and network applications."
"Haystack hides traffic to any from the internet at large inside traffic "
"The executable is under half a megabytes "
"We would like to see our as many people as possible assert their human right to free expression."
"revealing the source code at this time would only aide the authorities"
Plus their FAQ logo actually says QFA. If they pay so little attention to detail on their site, I can just imagine what the program must be like. It probably has some bug that accidentally sends your name, phone number, physical address, and all e-mail correspondence directly to the mullahs.
Well, we do have an extensive [wikipedia.org] history [wikipedia.org] of meddling. [wikipedia.org] Okay, it's actually freaking huge.
Who doesn't?
Iranian law is pretty tough on smut .... death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies ....
Meh. This is Iran we're talking about. I'm pretty sure they have the death penalty for driving without a seatbelt. A law isn't considered "tough" there unless the punishment involves teeth pulling and genital mutilation.
We didn't give Japan much "dignity" either, but they turned out just fine. On the other hand, we gave North Korea plenty of "dignity" .....
The idea that WW2 might never have happened if it weren't for the conditions imposed on Germany after WW1 is fun to think about, but is rather simplistic, and not at all realistic.
Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious that the page you link to has an embedded flash video?
The Wikipedia article seems heavily slanted. It diligently lists all the problems the UN inspectors faced, but avoids mentioning their main conclusion. Let's go to some sources.
Neither of your sources support your conclusion. Both of them quote just one individual, speaking after the fact about what he supposedly knew before the war. If that's the best you can find, then you have no case.
You're missing the point. The question was if people, outside of the Bush administration, doubted the claims of WMDs even before the war. And they did. To many outsiders, it was perfectly clear how ridiculous the claims were.
No, the question was whether or not it was "obvious" to "most outside observers". Now you're moving the goalposts by talking about "people" doubting the claim, or "many outsiders" thinking the claims were ridiculous. I suppose if by "many" you mean "a significant minority", then sure. Hell, "many" people are still convinced we didn't land on the moon. For any event you're going to have some portion of the populace which is opposed to the popular consensus. If that's all that you want to claim, then fine: I agree. If, on the other hand, you're still trying to claim that most people knew that Iraq didn't have "WMD" prior to the invasion, you've done absolutely nothing to support that contention.
That's rather like Ahmadinejad claiming that there aren't any homosexuals in Iran. Same level of plausibility.
Of course. The really important stuff will get saved. Some of the background noise will also survive, just due to the curiosity of historians and archivists. The rest will be flushed or just lost with time. Status quo - no change over what we have from past generations. The only difference is that our population is so much bigger, and our archival methods so much better, that the sheer quantity of saved data is bound to be much higher. But the idea that EVERYTHING we generate will be archived forever? Please. If I thought that was the case, I'd be much more careful about the comments I make on here :)
Were you drunk when you wrote this response, or are you just generally this incoherent?
Depends on what you're looking for. Good beer and great women? Stay there! A less flammable environment? I dunno ... hell?
I'm sorry, but I think Oz itself is a major cause of bushfires. When a bucket of water left out in the sun causes your back-yard to catch fire, you might want to consider blaming the locale.
I just can't believe that those damn scienticians keep rejecting the Time Cube Universe. Clearly there must be a conspiracy in the journals to prevent Mr. Ray from publishing his groundbreaking discoveries.