You accept his apology... for correctly pointing out that you're full of shit?
NOTHING on that page backs up the claims you've made. It doesn't speak about the right to detain suspects in Florida. It doesn't say anything about the "commonwealth". It says nothing about Miranda rights. And, lastly, it doesn't say a fucking thing about martial law.
If anything it shows that you're just making it up as you go along, since the measures mentioned in the article are much laxer than anything you spoke of, and none of it agrees with what you were claiming earlier. Either provide some evidence to back up your assertions, or be a man and admit that you're full of shit.
As an interesting side-note, although I know little about Hurricane Frances, I do know that Martial Law was NOT declared in Florida, or anywhere else. The only people who claim that it happened are the far-right lunatics over at prison-planet. This is what happens when you get all your information from Alex Jones.
Cute:) Seriously, though, you're not actually going to try and defend that crap, are you? Those "filmmakers" make Michael Moore look like a paragon of truth and honesty.
Oh, and btw, my "SlashID" is that bunch of numbers beside my username.
I know there's probably no point in talking to someone who thinks that "Republic Broadcasting Network" is a good source of news, but I gotta ask... was there some point to that video?
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. You've shown that the overall track record is essentially the same. You then picked one particular statistic, and argued that it shows the Soyuz program to be safer. While that may be the case if we ignore all other considerations, I don't understand your rationale for focusing on that one metric while ignoring all others.
If we were to examine all "close calls" and find a similar trend, I would heartily agree that the Soyuz program is far safer. However, the (admittedly limited) available data shows that this is probably not be the case.
Think of it this way: you and I have a game of Russian Roulette, and after 3 trigger pulls each... I win. You're arguing that my safety record is significantly better than yours since I have a 100% success rate, while you've failed 33% of the time. I don't find that to be a particularly rational analysis of the situation:)
It means, generally, that there is a prevailing wind in the direction of moral behavior being valued.
Pffft. Ha! That's a good one. Apparently you've never heard of human sacrifices, religious wars/crusades/jihad, oppressive theocratic states, genocide, or rewards in the afterlife being promised in exchange for acts of violence in this life. I don't see anything particularly moral about god telling the Jews to commit genocide and, oh, by the way, make sure they keep all the virgin girls alive to use for themselves.
But never mind all that - let's pretend it never happened: your claim is is still ludicrous since morality is inherently internal. Morality is what we do when nobody is looking. If you believe that an all knowing sky-daddy is watching your every move, then you cannot exercise your morality. You do not choose to be moral - you are no more than a slave following instructions in order to avoid punishment. The content of those instructions is irrelevant to you - if your magic-man came down and told you to murder your neighbor and rape his 6 year old daughter, you would do that, too, since Daddy Knows Best.
On the other hand, Christianity is interesting because it doesn't specifically require any particular behavior. Christianity tells you that you are an evil, dirty, immoral sinner... but that's ok! God still loves you and as long as you accept Jeebus, you can go to heaven. If you buy into Christs teachings, you can go out and rape, murder, and pillage to your hearts content, and still get into heaven - or you can give all your goods to charity, spend every waking moment helping others, care for abandoned puppies and help little old ladies cross the road... and burn for all eternity in hell because you thought jeebus was full of shit. Christianity doesn't require a particular type of behavior - it requires mindless acceptance of it's dogma, and nothing else.
In which case morality becomes "what is convenient to me and which benefits me".
That's right - self interest motivates moral behavior. What is "convenient" ends up being "not going to jail", and "which benefits me" ends up being "cooperating with others to our mutual benefit". Study some games theory and you'll get the idea.
Basically, it's the difference between morals that are considered to be absolute and unchanging because they were handed down by $diety - and cultural mores which can shift in the slightest breeze.
Nonsense - since morals are inherently internal, they're unlikely to change without some serious changes in the individual. Whereas what you call morality - in essence, nothing more than obeying an authority figure - can easily be twisted to encourage immoral behavior. There's no person in this world who could convince me that killing someone who means me no harm is justified, whereas convincing millions of Christians of the same thing is as easy as getting the pope to proclaim it. History is replete with tyrants committing all sorts of atrocities with the assistance of the masses who are too stupid or too brainwashed to question authority figures.
If you have food, and I have a gun and am starving, do you truly believe cultural influences matter that much?
Yes, although probably not as much as personality and upbringing.
If I'm the one with the gun, I'll offer to help you protect your resources as well as contributing my skills and labor in other ways. I find that a fair exchange is far preferable to mindless violence. Whereas, if the situation were reversed, you would apparently rather shoot me and take what I have. So, as I said, while cultural influence certainly has a role there are obviously other factors at play, also.
What happens usually is the damaged parties get a $10 coupon off their next copy of Windows, and the lawyers walk away (using your numbers) with $900M cash
Well, now that you mention it, yeah! I can! It is the Russian Federal Space Agency. They currently have a running string of 94 manned launches with zero fatalities (the equivalent number for the U.S. is 16).
According to wikipedia, Russia has had 96 cosmonauts in space, four of whom died. That's assuming they didn't lose some while they were the USSR, and lying about everything. NASA has had 277 astronauts in space, 18 of whom died. That's 4.1% and 6.4% respectively - hardly a massive difference.
This article has a fairly extensive overview of known accidents associated with the Russian and American space programs.
Fatal accidents exclusively concentrated near the beginning shows a system that got through the near side of the "bathtub curve" and is now operating with high reliability.
Except that with such a small sample size, you don't have enough data to draw that conclusion. If I flip a coin 10 times and get heads on 8 of the tosses, that doesn't mean heads is more likely to come up - it just means my sample size is too small.
Go to the wiki page and look at the "near-fatalities" section. You'll notice a trend. Out of the 10 most recent accidents, 8 were part of the Russian space program. For instance, look at the most recent:
2008 April 19: Soyuz TMA-11 suffered a reentry mishap similar to that suffered by Soyuz 5 in 1969; the service module failed to completely separate from the reentry vehicle and caused it to face the wrong way during the early portion of aerobraking. As with Soyuz 5, the service module eventually separated and the reentry vehicle completed a rough but survivable landing. Following the Russian news agency Interfax's report, this was widely reported as life-threatening while NASA urged caution pending an investigation of the vehicle.
Certainly sounds like a fairly serious problem to me. That the service module eventually separated is just blind luck.
To be fair, the article does also note that:
Shuttle incidents generally look unspectacular, but are no less life threatening. Many of the Shuttle launches prior to Challenger arguably constituted near misses—partial burn through of the O-ring material in the solid rocket boosters had occurred many times.
So that list of near-fatalities might slightly slanted. However, you don't get to pretend that the Russian program is inherently safer just because they've been lucky enough to survive their accidents.
Yep. I've seen dozens of people running pirated copies of XP, all with WGA installed and humming happily to itself. As usual, the ones most harmed by this measure are those who aren't doing anything wrong.
Seriously - we all know this. Every class-action against a tech company usually results in (at absolute best) a hundred bucks or so to each class-action participant, while the lawyer(s) leading the charge get to go buy a new yacht/house/jaguar/whatever with their take.
Yes. And?
In a lawsuit with 10,000,000 plaintiffs which pays out $1,000,000,000 dollars, how do you expect the distribution of the money to work out? Do you expect the lawyers to work for free? Or are you suggesting that the defendant should be fined 1 million-bliion-quazillion dollars so that EVERY plaintiff can go out and buy a yacht?
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, or what your proposed solution is, so if you could clarify that for me I'd appreciate it.
Do you actually believe that Win* runs as snappily as Linux?
As Ubuntu, or any of the other consumer-oriented distros - yes. Sure, you can install Gentoo and fine-tune everything for your individual system, and disable all the unnecessary services, and install a light-weight window manager.... but I can do most of that with Windows, too, by using nLIte. I'm not talking about specialized installations, though - I'm talking about your standard Ubuntu install vs a typical installation of XP. I haven't seen any difference performance wise, (other than xorg eating up my RAM thanks to an ATI driver memory leak).
This is very curious to me. I've been happily running Linux since '93 (THANKYOU Linus!!!). Windows is superfluous here.
That certainly explains your lack of objectivity.
The other day, my next door neighbor mentioned he'd a machine that was hosed. I booted it into Knoppix, then installed Xubuntu. There's nothing wrong with it that wiping Win* wouldn't cure. He brought over his son's machine today, and I did the same to it. He's ecstatic that he's now two working machines at the cost of a couple of hours of my time, for which he needn't hunt for replacements.
Just wait until he realizes that his tax/accounting software won't run on linux, and his son tries watching some youtube clips on it. Expect to have your tires slashed and your house egged!
Seriously, though, I've never seen anyone transition from win to linux that easily. Hell, I had trouble convincing people go from windows 9x to windows xp because some of their specialized software wasn't compatible. I get the feeling that you're in the running to be Linus' Propaganda Minister.
Oh, please. That's the least of Win* users' problems.
Ok. Details?
Why has my neighbor never heard of Linux despite my proselytizing since ca. '93? That's what I'd like to clear up. That's what pees off this FLOSS proselytizer.:-P
Because for most of that period it's been utter garbage.
I heard about it in 94/95 because one of my classmates was a linux fanatic. He showed it to me, I said "command line... wheee", and promptly went back to windows and macs. At that point we were just starting to get away from the DOS command line, and I had no desire to go back.
Ever since linux has been lagging behind windows, whether it be because of shitty graphics, poor driver support, lack of user-friendly installation and management solutions, or limited software availability. It's only in recent years that Linux has become a viable competitor on the desktop.
NASA doesnt have a great safety track record any longer.
Well that's a load of shit. Can you name a space agency which regularly launches manned missions and has a significantly better safety track record?
Didn't think so.
NASA has made some stupid mistakes, that's a given. They've also had issues maintaining a good safety-culture. Those problems have lead to unnecessary deaths, and every step should be taken to ensure that they are rectified. However, with great achievements come great risks. If we're not willing to accept the fact that we WILL make mistakes and we WILL lose people, then we shouldn't expect to ever achieve anything significant.
I've installed countless ubuntu systems on people with little technical expertise that don't understand why they have 10 browser tool bars in their IE install and wonder why their computers run like shit.
In that case, wouldn't the easier solution be to install firefox on windows?
Don't get me wrong - I like Ubuntu despite the problems I've been having with Linux in general (they really need to get ATI support working properly). I also love the free-software ideal. But, realistically, there's no performance difference between Ubuntu and Windows XP or windows 7. The only problems people have with MS operating systems is that they keep voluntarily installing all sorts of crapware which slows down their machines. If 90% of users switched over to Ubuntu, don't you think that sooner or later they'd start having the same problems?
Have these scientists contemplated what could happen if these created creatures escape into the wild breeding amongst themselves and/or other similar species.
Yah, because a herd of slow-moving herbivores which we've ALREADY hunted to extinction is somehow going to be impossible to exterminate. Those 2,000lb bovines are sneaky fuckers. I think there's a colony hiding under my fridge. I keep putting out traps but, no matter how many I kill, there always seem to be more!
The OP is saying that we have not lost (e.g. given up our civil liberties, accepted significant restrictions on our freedoms, etc.) just because Osama bin Laden has not declared victory.
Nope, never said that. Now you're just making shit up.
That's a silly truism. NOBODY needs to win in order for us to lose, depending on your definition of loss. You may as well replace "terrorists" with "martians" or "pink unicorns". There's obviously a couple halfwits with mod-points kicking around, or you would never have gotten modded "insightful" for making such a pointless comment.
heh. "victory", huh? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'm sure Osama Bin laden is sitting in a cave right now yelling:
"OMG guys, did j00 see this? A teacher in Amerikkka called da cops on sum kid! Allahu Akbar, victory is ours! Our Jihad is over!"
Of course, this event will shortly be followed by President Obama handing over the keys to the Whitehouse, and the entire US population converting to Islam. Truly a great day for the Caliphate.
That would be the same Big Pharma that couldn't keep up with the demand? Yes, there's a good plan. "Hey, let's get people to buy our product, and then make sure we don't have enough of it! Oh, and let's charge so little for it that we barely cover the legal fees to defend ourselves from idiots and conspiracy theorists!".
Yep, that makes perfect sense.
FYI the entire GLOBAL market for ALL vaccines generates about $20 Billion, while $34 Billion is spent annually in the US alone on "Alternative Medicine" (aka. "shit-that-does-nothing-except-make-the-seller-richer"). But "Big Altmed" doesn't sound nearly as ominous, so I guess they get a free pass. It's much more fun to target the people who are actually trying to do some good in this world.
It wasn't a company. I think it's pretty clear who is REALLY behind this. All you have to do is follow the money. Ask yourself - who had the most to gain? The answer is clear, as long as you're not a sheep. There can be no doubt that the true perpetrator is..... JENNY MCCARTHY!
Think about it.... who vacationed in Mexico shortly before H1N1 hit? Who was a washed-up actress with no real prospects until this "pandemic"? Who made millions of dollars and gained millions of loyal followers thanks to this event? Who is married to The Riddler - a mad genius capable of engineering a mutant virus? You got it! Opportunity, Motive, and Means - only one person has them all! I'm surprised that someone of your (clearly superior) intellect hasn't come up with the answer up until now, but I suppose we all have our off days. Now that you know The Truth, though, I'm sure you'll join me in spreading our message!
Slashdot Mirror
You accept his apology ... for correctly pointing out that you're full of shit?
NOTHING on that page backs up the claims you've made. It doesn't speak about the right to detain suspects in Florida. It doesn't say anything about the "commonwealth". It says nothing about Miranda rights. And, lastly, it doesn't say a fucking thing about martial law.
If anything it shows that you're just making it up as you go along, since the measures mentioned in the article are much laxer than anything you spoke of, and none of it agrees with what you were claiming earlier. Either provide some evidence to back up your assertions, or be a man and admit that you're full of shit.
As an interesting side-note, although I know little about Hurricane Frances, I do know that Martial Law was NOT declared in Florida, or anywhere else. The only people who claim that it happened are the far-right lunatics over at prison-planet. This is what happens when you get all your information from Alex Jones.
Cute :) Seriously, though, you're not actually going to try and defend that crap, are you? Those "filmmakers" make Michael Moore look like a paragon of truth and honesty.
Oh, and btw, my "SlashID" is that bunch of numbers beside my username.
I know there's probably no point in talking to someone who thinks that "Republic Broadcasting Network" is a good source of news, but I gotta ask ... was there some point to that video?
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. You've shown that the overall track record is essentially the same. You then picked one particular statistic, and argued that it shows the Soyuz program to be safer. While that may be the case if we ignore all other considerations, I don't understand your rationale for focusing on that one metric while ignoring all others.
If we were to examine all "close calls" and find a similar trend, I would heartily agree that the Soyuz program is far safer. However, the (admittedly limited) available data shows that this is probably not be the case.
Think of it this way: you and I have a game of Russian Roulette, and after 3 trigger pulls each ... I win. You're arguing that my safety record is significantly better than yours since I have a 100% success rate, while you've failed 33% of the time. I don't find that to be a particularly rational analysis of the situation :)
What exactly is a "dogmatic definition of Christianity"?
It means, generally, that there is a prevailing wind in the direction of moral behavior being valued.
Pffft. Ha! That's a good one. Apparently you've never heard of human sacrifices, religious wars/crusades/jihad, oppressive theocratic states, genocide, or rewards in the afterlife being promised in exchange for acts of violence in this life. I don't see anything particularly moral about god telling the Jews to commit genocide and, oh, by the way, make sure they keep all the virgin girls alive to use for themselves.
But never mind all that - let's pretend it never happened: your claim is is still ludicrous since morality is inherently internal. Morality is what we do when nobody is looking. If you believe that an all knowing sky-daddy is watching your every move, then you cannot exercise your morality. You do not choose to be moral - you are no more than a slave following instructions in order to avoid punishment. The content of those instructions is irrelevant to you - if your magic-man came down and told you to murder your neighbor and rape his 6 year old daughter, you would do that, too, since Daddy Knows Best.
On the other hand, Christianity is interesting because it doesn't specifically require any particular behavior. Christianity tells you that you are an evil, dirty, immoral sinner ... but that's ok! God still loves you and as long as you accept Jeebus, you can go to heaven. If you buy into Christs teachings, you can go out and rape, murder, and pillage to your hearts content, and still get into heaven - or you can give all your goods to charity, spend every waking moment helping others, care for abandoned puppies and help little old ladies cross the road ... and burn for all eternity in hell because you thought jeebus was full of shit. Christianity doesn't require a particular type of behavior - it requires mindless acceptance of it's dogma, and nothing else.
In which case morality becomes "what is convenient to me and which benefits me".
That's right - self interest motivates moral behavior. What is "convenient" ends up being "not going to jail", and "which benefits me" ends up being "cooperating with others to our mutual benefit". Study some games theory and you'll get the idea.
Basically, it's the difference between morals that are considered to be absolute and unchanging because they were handed down by $diety - and cultural mores which can shift in the slightest breeze.
Nonsense - since morals are inherently internal, they're unlikely to change without some serious changes in the individual. Whereas what you call morality - in essence, nothing more than obeying an authority figure - can easily be twisted to encourage immoral behavior. There's no person in this world who could convince me that killing someone who means me no harm is justified, whereas convincing millions of Christians of the same thing is as easy as getting the pope to proclaim it. History is replete with tyrants committing all sorts of atrocities with the assistance of the masses who are too stupid or too brainwashed to question authority figures.
What in the world does religion have to do with morality?
If you have food, and I have a gun and am starving, do you truly believe cultural influences matter that much?
Yes, although probably not as much as personality and upbringing.
If I'm the one with the gun, I'll offer to help you protect your resources as well as contributing my skills and labor in other ways. I find that a fair exchange is far preferable to mindless violence. Whereas, if the situation were reversed, you would apparently rather shoot me and take what I have. So, as I said, while cultural influence certainly has a role there are obviously other factors at play, also.
What happens usually is the damaged parties get a $10 coupon off their next copy of Windows, and the lawyers walk away (using your numbers) with $900M cash
Really? Got a source for that claim?
Well, now that you mention it, yeah! I can! It is the Russian Federal Space Agency. They currently have a running string of 94 manned launches with zero fatalities (the equivalent number for the U.S. is 16).
According to wikipedia, Russia has had 96 cosmonauts in space, four of whom died. That's assuming they didn't lose some while they were the USSR, and lying about everything. NASA has had 277 astronauts in space, 18 of whom died. That's 4.1% and 6.4% respectively - hardly a massive difference.
This article has a fairly extensive overview of known accidents associated with the Russian and American space programs.
Fatal accidents exclusively concentrated near the beginning shows a system that got through the near side of the "bathtub curve" and is now operating with high reliability.
Except that with such a small sample size, you don't have enough data to draw that conclusion. If I flip a coin 10 times and get heads on 8 of the tosses, that doesn't mean heads is more likely to come up - it just means my sample size is too small.
Go to the wiki page and look at the "near-fatalities" section. You'll notice a trend. Out of the 10 most recent accidents, 8 were part of the Russian space program. For instance, look at the most recent:
2008 April 19: Soyuz TMA-11 suffered a reentry mishap similar to that suffered by Soyuz 5 in 1969; the service module failed to completely separate from the reentry vehicle and caused it to face the wrong way during the early portion of aerobraking. As with Soyuz 5, the service module eventually separated and the reentry vehicle completed a rough but survivable landing. Following the Russian news agency Interfax's report, this was widely reported as life-threatening while NASA urged caution pending an investigation of the vehicle.
Certainly sounds like a fairly serious problem to me. That the service module eventually separated is just blind luck.
To be fair, the article does also note that:
Shuttle incidents generally look unspectacular, but are no less life threatening. Many of the Shuttle launches prior to Challenger arguably constituted near misses—partial burn through of the O-ring material in the solid rocket boosters had occurred many times.
So that list of near-fatalities might slightly slanted. However, you don't get to pretend that the Russian program is inherently safer just because they've been lucky enough to survive their accidents.
You do the math and tell me if this is to benefit the lawyers or the end users.
I hate to tell you this, but lawyers use MS software too.
Yep. I've seen dozens of people running pirated copies of XP, all with WGA installed and humming happily to itself. As usual, the ones most harmed by this measure are those who aren't doing anything wrong.
Seriously - we all know this. Every class-action against a tech company usually results in (at absolute best) a hundred bucks or so to each class-action participant, while the lawyer(s) leading the charge get to go buy a new yacht/house/jaguar/whatever with their take.
Yes. And?
In a lawsuit with 10,000,000 plaintiffs which pays out $1,000,000,000 dollars, how do you expect the distribution of the money to work out? Do you expect the lawyers to work for free? Or are you suggesting that the defendant should be fined 1 million-bliion-quazillion dollars so that EVERY plaintiff can go out and buy a yacht?
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, or what your proposed solution is, so if you could clarify that for me I'd appreciate it.
Do you actually believe that Win* runs as snappily as Linux?
As Ubuntu, or any of the other consumer-oriented distros - yes. Sure, you can install Gentoo and fine-tune everything for your individual system, and disable all the unnecessary services, and install a light-weight window manager .... but I can do most of that with Windows, too, by using nLIte. I'm not talking about specialized installations, though - I'm talking about your standard Ubuntu install vs a typical installation of XP. I haven't seen any difference performance wise, (other than xorg eating up my RAM thanks to an ATI driver memory leak).
This is very curious to me. I've been happily running Linux since '93 (THANKYOU Linus!!!). Windows is superfluous here.
That certainly explains your lack of objectivity.
The other day, my next door neighbor mentioned he'd a machine that was hosed. I booted it into Knoppix, then installed Xubuntu. There's nothing wrong with it that wiping Win* wouldn't cure. He brought over his son's machine today, and I did the same to it. He's ecstatic that he's now two working machines at the cost of a couple of hours of my time, for which he needn't hunt for replacements.
Just wait until he realizes that his tax/accounting software won't run on linux, and his son tries watching some youtube clips on it. Expect to have your tires slashed and your house egged!
Seriously, though, I've never seen anyone transition from win to linux that easily. Hell, I had trouble convincing people go from windows 9x to windows xp because some of their specialized software wasn't compatible. I get the feeling that you're in the running to be Linus' Propaganda Minister.
Oh, please. That's the least of Win* users' problems.
Ok. Details?
Why has my neighbor never heard of Linux despite my proselytizing since ca. '93? That's what I'd like to clear up. That's what pees off this FLOSS proselytizer. :-P
Because for most of that period it's been utter garbage.
I heard about it in 94/95 because one of my classmates was a linux fanatic. He showed it to me, I said "command line ... wheee", and promptly went back to windows and macs. At that point we were just starting to get away from the DOS command line, and I had no desire to go back.
Ever since linux has been lagging behind windows, whether it be because of shitty graphics, poor driver support, lack of user-friendly installation and management solutions, or limited software availability. It's only in recent years that Linux has become a viable competitor on the desktop.
NASA doesnt have a great safety track record any longer.
Well that's a load of shit. Can you name a space agency which regularly launches manned missions and has a significantly better safety track record?
Didn't think so.
NASA has made some stupid mistakes, that's a given. They've also had issues maintaining a good safety-culture. Those problems have lead to unnecessary deaths, and every step should be taken to ensure that they are rectified. However, with great achievements come great risks. If we're not willing to accept the fact that we WILL make mistakes and we WILL lose people, then we shouldn't expect to ever achieve anything significant.
I've installed countless ubuntu systems on people with little technical expertise that don't understand why they have 10 browser tool bars in their IE install and wonder why their computers run like shit.
In that case, wouldn't the easier solution be to install firefox on windows?
Don't get me wrong - I like Ubuntu despite the problems I've been having with Linux in general (they really need to get ATI support working properly). I also love the free-software ideal. But, realistically, there's no performance difference between Ubuntu and Windows XP or windows 7. The only problems people have with MS operating systems is that they keep voluntarily installing all sorts of crapware which slows down their machines. If 90% of users switched over to Ubuntu, don't you think that sooner or later they'd start having the same problems?
Have these scientists contemplated what could happen if these created creatures escape into the wild breeding amongst themselves and/or other similar species.
Yah, because a herd of slow-moving herbivores which we've ALREADY hunted to extinction is somehow going to be impossible to exterminate. Those 2,000lb bovines are sneaky fuckers. I think there's a colony hiding under my fridge. I keep putting out traps but, no matter how many I kill, there always seem to be more!
You're right - who'd want to see some silly dame choking on an apple when you can watch a TALKING DOG instead???
EVERY hour spent sitting idle in front of the television raises the risk of premature death from heart disease by 18%, an
Australian study found.
*facepalm*
The OP is saying that we have not lost (e.g. given up our civil liberties, accepted significant restrictions on our freedoms, etc.) just because Osama bin Laden has not declared victory.
Nope, never said that. Now you're just making shit up.
That's a silly truism. NOBODY needs to win in order for us to lose, depending on your definition of loss. You may as well replace "terrorists" with "martians" or "pink unicorns". There's obviously a couple halfwits with mod-points kicking around, or you would never have gotten modded "insightful" for making such a pointless comment.
heh. "victory", huh? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'm sure Osama Bin laden is sitting in a cave right now yelling:
"OMG guys, did j00 see this? A teacher in Amerikkka called da cops on sum kid! Allahu Akbar, victory is ours! Our Jihad is over!"
Of course, this event will shortly be followed by President Obama handing over the keys to the Whitehouse, and the entire US population converting to Islam. Truly a great day for the Caliphate.
That would be the same Big Pharma that couldn't keep up with the demand? Yes, there's a good plan. "Hey, let's get people to buy our product, and then make sure we don't have enough of it! Oh, and let's charge so little for it that we barely cover the legal fees to defend ourselves from idiots and conspiracy theorists!".
Yep, that makes perfect sense.
FYI the entire GLOBAL market for ALL vaccines generates about $20 Billion, while $34 Billion is spent annually in the US alone on "Alternative Medicine" (aka. "shit-that-does-nothing-except-make-the-seller-richer"). But "Big Altmed" doesn't sound nearly as ominous, so I guess they get a free pass. It's much more fun to target the people who are actually trying to do some good in this world.
The Dutch government wasted 200 million euros on a crazy snake oil scheme
So you're saying that the vaccines don't work? That's a pretty serious accusation. I don't suppose you have any evidence?
I have some, er, tiger-repellent badges I'd like to sell.
I'll bet that's just as profitable as your attempt to sell FUD on /.
It wasn't a company. I think it's pretty clear who is REALLY behind this. All you have to do is follow the money. Ask yourself - who had the most to gain? The answer is clear, as long as you're not a sheep. There can be no doubt that the true perpetrator is ..... JENNY MCCARTHY!
Think about it .... who vacationed in Mexico shortly before H1N1 hit? Who was a washed-up actress with no real prospects until this "pandemic"? Who made millions of dollars and gained millions of loyal followers thanks to this event? Who is married to The Riddler - a mad genius capable of engineering a mutant virus? You got it! Opportunity, Motive, and Means - only one person has them all! I'm surprised that someone of your (clearly superior) intellect hasn't come up with the answer up until now, but I suppose we all have our off days. Now that you know The Truth, though, I'm sure you'll join me in spreading our message!