Ahmadinajad has spoken of using a referendum to remove Israel from the map
I was with you up until that. After reading that, I've concluded that you're not living in the same universe as the rest of us. Next you'll tell me that when Hitler said "We Need Breathing Room!", all he really wanted was an oxygen tent.
They were so certain that they were the best, that someone else crushed them to pieces.
What you fail to mention is that they really WERE "the best". Major civilizations which collapsed in the past were leaps and bound ahead of the rest of the world. They provided stability, civilization, and improved the standard of living not only for their citizens but often for the people they conquered as well. Only an idiot would argue that the world was better off after Rome collapsed. Things got a hell of a lot worse, real fast. So what do you imagine will happen if the US collapses?
Powerful nations don't fall because they get overconfident. They fall because their citizens no longer have the desire to keep going. If America DOES collapse, it won't be because of an external threat. It will be because of the bickering, infighting, and sheer indifference and laziness of it's own people.
So, Greenpeace provides technically reliable information but you don't like their style. But, if their information is correct, then perhaps their style reflects their valid concerns and should not be ignored.
Technically speaking, Bush was right when he said that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". Perhaps the alarmist style in which he presented that information reflected a valid concern?
Face it, the way you say something is often just as important as whether you're right or wrong. That's why the next time the US starts talking about "WMD's", nobody will pay any attention.
You think that would happen today???? No..they HAVE to charge you with something if they take the 'time' out of their shift to pull you over or question you.
You're smoking crack. I've had a few run-ins with cops in recent years, including an incident just this past June in New York state. The officers I interacted with were professional, courteous, and none had any interest in charging me or anyone else involved, despite the fact that they would have been completely within their rights to do so.
Well said. These "the sky are falling" types are really starting to get annoying. You'd think that after a few hundred years of being consistently wrong, they'd give up already.
Again you use that phrase, "a lot". You still don't get it, do you? Even if only 100 kids in ALL of the US were somewhat malnourished, you could still say that "a lot" of kids in the US are "starving". It's a meaningless friggin' phrase. You seem to be confusing your emotional outbursts for a factual argument.
What's "a lot"? 10%? 5%? 1%? Less than that?
Words like "a lot" don't mean anything without context. To a third world kid, a can of beans for dinner would be "a lot of food". To an American kid, it'd be insulting.
By your logic, paying out the ass for Microsoft products allows the Gates foundation to donate more money to all sorts of worthy causes! Therefore, paying $130 for a crappy office suite is actually an advantage!
In most aid efforts, the US contributes almost a third of the cost. That's without even factoring in military support, which is in most cases a huge portion of the total cost. For instance, during the tsunami dozens of nations raised millions of dollars, but couldn't do anything with it. Meanwhile the yanks were on the scene with an aircraft carrier and a medical ship, providing food, water, transportation, search and rescue, and medical assistance.
You may also notice that the worlds largest charity efforts are almost exclusively American in origin, as are the largest human rights organizations. And, finally, the US almost single-handedly carries the operating costs of the UN. So, buddy, if you're looking for someone to pick on for being stingy, you've chosen the wrong target.
Why do the words "Stazi", "SS", "Gestapo", and "Praetorian Guard" jump to mind?
Because you're retarded?
Ok, maybe not retarded, but deffinitely brainwashed past the point of logical thought when it comes to anything government related. You've now got an automated twitch-reflex. I'll bet every time a cop walks by, you throw yourself on the ground and scream "DON'T TASE ME, BRO!".
All that has been accomplished is to show the WORLD how ineffective anti-terrorist measures really are
Right! I mean, look at the thousands of terrorist attacks which have occured since those measures have been put into place! Clearly they're not working at all!
Also, someone better tell those silly Israeli's that they're wasting their time. They may as well just throw away all their weaponry and stop trying to defend themselves. Mr Zappepcs will show them the path to world peace!
I am truly amazed at some of the comment here. I'm even more amazed to see them rated +5 insightful.
The only thing I've learned from reading through the comments here is that the average slashdotter is so insulated from the real world, that he or she cannot even identify a real threat when they see it. I mean, seriously, I'm convinced that some of you, were I to swing a baseball bat at your head, would stand there grinning like idiots, fully secure in the knowledge that nobody would EVER swing a real bat at you in public. It's mind-numbing.
I always used to think that nerds not getting laid was Darwinism in reverse, but I'm starting to think that mother nature may not have made a mistake after all....
I wrote a detailed response, and then lost it. Since I have no intention of arguing with you any more, I'll sum it up in a few short sentences:
1) You seem to have assumed that I think every single insane person should be locked up in a prison. I never stated that, nor did I even suggest it. You've simply hallucinated motives and statements which I never expressed.
2) The lunatic in question has quite a history; I made my assessment of him based on his past actions, not only those at his "protest".
3) Police are the first line of defence, whether the criminal is sane or not. This individual broke the law. His insanity may be a defence in a court of law, but that does not mean that the police should not first arrest him in order to put a stop to his behaviour.
That's that. If you want to keep misinterpreting my statements, go ahead, but don't expect any more responses from me.
I know something about how mental health services are organised (because I help to organise them), and I know what thinking is and am capable of doing it.
The former may be true, but I've yet to see any evidence of the latter.
Firstly, not all "lunatics" require being forced to have treatment. Many people with mental health issues willingly volunteer to have treatment, or can be persuaded.
That's nice, but we're not talking about "many" lunatics, we were discussing this one particular crazy-ass individual, who is clearly not going to submit himself for treatment willingly.
Secondly, placing someone in a secure facility may involve the police (called "sectioning" in the UK), but frequently does not -- doctors can arrange for it to be done, and it will typically involve a couple of beefy orderlys and potentially a sedative as well.
Which is still arrest. Whether or not an arrest involves police is irrelevant - if you place someone in custody and restrict their freedom of movement and association, you are either kidnapping them, or are placing them under arrest. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you.
It's not a crime to be insane
Who said it was?
I get the feeling that you've made up an argument for me, and are now only arguing with yourself. That's not very productive.
In the future, if you need help figuring out how to better express yourself, feel free to ask. I'd be more than happy to proof-read your posts for you. We wouldn't want you implying unintentionally things that you don't mean.
Other than that, that was some first-class pointless whining! Keep up the good work!
The problem is, there's a huge difference between "reasonable pricing" and "too high, but I have to pay it if I want the service". One is fair, the other is borderline extortion.
So you're saying the government should intervene and make everyone price their products "fairly"?
Fair by whose standards? Paris Hilton's? Or that homeless guy on the street corner with the bottle of Listerine and the "fuck you" hat?
While we're at it, what gives you the right to sell your personal property at any price you chose? Shouldn't you have to apply for government assessment before placing your used iPod for sale on e-bay?
I can choose to not have any cable, or I can choose to pay too much. My choice.
Wow, you DO understand capitalism! Amazing. So what exactly are you complaining about again?
There's a reason I don't own a cell-phone, and don't have cable TV either. Not only am I not satisfied with the quality of most services, but I'm also unwilling to pay their prices. The solution is simple. I can assure you that I am NOT suffering in horrible agony without a cell and basic cable. In fact, I find it just leaves me with more time to do thing which ENRICH my life. So if you think I'm going to bring in Big Brother to start telling people how much they can sell stuff for just so I can buy another electronic gadget for a bit cheaper, you're friggin' nuts.
I prefer the good old days. If he pisses others off enough that they decide to chuck him out, or throw rotten tomatoes at him, all well and good -- and certainly better than involving the police.
Agreed. Citizens should be encouraged to get involved in law-enforcement. It tends to create a culture of accountability, which reduces crime, and makes for a better behaved society in general. Whereas societies which discourage civilian involvement tend to end up being the exact opposite.
While we're at it, I'm not sure why you think it's helpful to arrest mentally ill people.
Because currently our only alternative is letting them run free. Given those two options, I deffinitely prefer to arrest them.
1) This has nothing to do with Congress, so the passage listed doesn't apply. 2) "Peaceably assemble" does not mean "act like an idiot". 3) "petition the government" does not mean "harass them and refuse to hear their answers". 4) In a police state, he wouldn't have had the chance to ask any questions to begin with.
and, finally
5) When attending any function held on private property, trespass laws take precedence. The owner or his lawful representatives have the right to eject you at any time, with no reason given. And if you resist, they have every right to place you under arrest, and use force if necessary.
In summation: you're an idiot who's ignorant of his rights, and totally oblivious of his responsibilities. People like you are why this idiocy happens in the first place - you think you have the right to act like a moron anywhere you want at any time, and are utterly shocked when the cops dare to stop you. Your ignorance is the reason that cops HAVE tazers.
In this case, it's quite clear that neither of those categories apply to this particular lunatic.
Moreover, in "the good old days", one of the audience members would probably have slugged him. Our grandfathers had a lot less patience for rudeness and stupidity.
I tried to moderate your comment "funny" but my mod points seemes to have disappeared between the time I loaded this article, and the time I hit "moderate".
Anyway: the Canadian claim on the arctic territories was never really accepted by most nations. It was simply never disputed because nobody gave a about who owned a bunch of frozen islands in the far north. Now that the ice is melting, EVERYONE is starting to care, and we Canadians, thanks to years of neglect, don't have any way of enforcing our claim. It's all well and good to say "we own this place, now pay us for going through!", but it takes the credible threat of force to be able to enforce such a statement. Don't expect anyone to take our claim seriously.
To play devil's advocate here, not everybody benefits from improved efficiency. Old, undereducated, less intelligent people cannot easily retrain.
The idea is that society as a whole benefits. Assume some old guy loses his job and is unable to be retrained. He can still do menial jobs for a low wage. Meanwhile, the overall price of goods continues to drop due to increased efficiency. He can afford to buy more with less. Not only that, but his family is also able to buy more with less, meaning they can set aside more money to help him along. 10 years down the road he's dead, new generations are no longer training to fill his now obsolete job, and can instead focus on other fields. And we are still able to produce more goods than we originally could, at a lower cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Powerful nations don't fall because they get overconfident. They fall because their citizens no longer have the desire to keep going. If America DOES collapse, it won't be because of an external threat. It will be because of the bickering, infighting, and sheer indifference and laziness of it's own people.
Face it, the way you say something is often just as important as whether you're right or wrong. That's why the next time the US starts talking about "WMD's", nobody will pay any attention.
Your post is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums.
Well said. These "the sky are falling" types are really starting to get annoying. You'd think that after a few hundred years of being consistently wrong, they'd give up already.
Again you use that phrase, "a lot". You still don't get it, do you? Even if only 100 kids in ALL of the US were somewhat malnourished, you could still say that "a lot" of kids in the US are "starving". It's a meaningless friggin' phrase. You seem to be confusing your emotional outbursts for a factual argument.
What's "a lot"? 10%? 5%? 1%? Less than that? Words like "a lot" don't mean anything without context. To a third world kid, a can of beans for dinner would be "a lot of food". To an American kid, it'd be insulting.
By your logic, paying out the ass for Microsoft products allows the Gates foundation to donate more money to all sorts of worthy causes! Therefore, paying $130 for a crappy office suite is actually an advantage!
Or, in the timeless words of Homer Simpson:
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
In most aid efforts, the US contributes almost a third of the cost. That's without even factoring in military support, which is in most cases a huge portion of the total cost. For instance, during the tsunami dozens of nations raised millions of dollars, but couldn't do anything with it. Meanwhile the yanks were on the scene with an aircraft carrier and a medical ship, providing food, water, transportation, search and rescue, and medical assistance.
You may also notice that the worlds largest charity efforts are almost exclusively American in origin, as are the largest human rights organizations. And, finally, the US almost single-handedly carries the operating costs of the UN. So, buddy, if you're looking for someone to pick on for being stingy, you've chosen the wrong target.
They had the Interweb in 1952?
Ok, maybe not retarded, but deffinitely brainwashed past the point of logical thought when it comes to anything government related. You've now got an automated twitch-reflex. I'll bet every time a cop walks by, you throw yourself on the ground and scream "DON'T TASE ME, BRO!".
Also, someone better tell those silly Israeli's that they're wasting their time. They may as well just throw away all their weaponry and stop trying to defend themselves. Mr Zappepcs will show them the path to world peace!
I am truly amazed at some of the comment here. I'm even more amazed to see them rated +5 insightful.
The only thing I've learned from reading through the comments here is that the average slashdotter is so insulated from the real world, that he or she cannot even identify a real threat when they see it. I mean, seriously, I'm convinced that some of you, were I to swing a baseball bat at your head, would stand there grinning like idiots, fully secure in the knowledge that nobody would EVER swing a real bat at you in public. It's mind-numbing.
I always used to think that nerds not getting laid was Darwinism in reverse, but I'm starting to think that mother nature may not have made a mistake after all....
I wrote a detailed response, and then lost it. Since I have no intention of arguing with you any more, I'll sum it up in a few short sentences:
1) You seem to have assumed that I think every single insane person should be locked up in a prison. I never stated that, nor did I even suggest it. You've simply hallucinated motives and statements which I never expressed.
2) The lunatic in question has quite a history; I made my assessment of him based on his past actions, not only those at his "protest".
3) Police are the first line of defence, whether the criminal is sane or not. This individual broke the law. His insanity may be a defence in a court of law, but that does not mean that the police should not first arrest him in order to put a stop to his behaviour.
That's that. If you want to keep misinterpreting my statements, go ahead, but don't expect any more responses from me.
That's nice, but we're not talking about "many" lunatics, we were discussing this one particular crazy-ass individual, who is clearly not going to submit himself for treatment willingly.
Which is still arrest. Whether or not an arrest involves police is irrelevant - if you place someone in custody and restrict their freedom of movement and association, you are either kidnapping them, or are placing them under arrest. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you. Who said it was?
I get the feeling that you've made up an argument for me, and are now only arguing with yourself. That's not very productive.
In the future, if you need help figuring out how to better express yourself, feel free to ask. I'd be more than happy to proof-read your posts for you. We wouldn't want you implying unintentionally things that you don't mean.
Other than that, that was some first-class pointless whining! Keep up the good work!
Fair by whose standards? Paris Hilton's? Or that homeless guy on the street corner with the bottle of Listerine and the "fuck you" hat?
While we're at it, what gives you the right to sell your personal property at any price you chose? Shouldn't you have to apply for government assessment before placing your used iPod for sale on e-bay?
Wow, you DO understand capitalism! Amazing. So what exactly are you complaining about again?
There's a reason I don't own a cell-phone, and don't have cable TV either. Not only am I not satisfied with the quality of most services, but I'm also unwilling to pay their prices. The solution is simple. I can assure you that I am NOT suffering in horrible agony without a cell and basic cable. In fact, I find it just leaves me with more time to do thing which ENRICH my life. So if you think I'm going to bring in Big Brother to start telling people how much they can sell stuff for just so I can buy another electronic gadget for a bit cheaper, you're friggin' nuts.
How do you propose to force a lunatic to get medical assistance?
I'll give ya a hint: it involves arrest!
Because currently our only alternative is letting them run free. Given those two options, I deffinitely prefer to arrest them.
Well, let's see in how many ways you're wrong:
1) This has nothing to do with Congress, so the passage listed doesn't apply.
2) "Peaceably assemble" does not mean "act like an idiot".
3) "petition the government" does not mean "harass them and refuse to hear their answers".
4) In a police state, he wouldn't have had the chance to ask any questions to begin with.
and, finally
5) When attending any function held on private property, trespass laws take precedence. The owner or his lawful representatives have the right to eject you at any time, with no reason given. And if you resist, they have every right to place you under arrest, and use force if necessary.
In summation: you're an idiot who's ignorant of his rights, and totally oblivious of his responsibilities. People like you are why this idiocy happens in the first place - you think you have the right to act like a moron anywhere you want at any time, and are utterly shocked when the cops dare to stop you. Your ignorance is the reason that cops HAVE tazers.
For "social opprobrium" to work, the guy has to:
a) care what others think.
and
b) be semi-sane.
In this case, it's quite clear that neither of those categories apply to this particular lunatic.
Moreover, in "the good old days", one of the audience members would probably have slugged him. Our grandfathers had a lot less patience for rudeness and stupidity.
I tried to moderate your comment "funny" but my mod points seemes to have disappeared between the time I loaded this article, and the time I hit "moderate".
Anyway: the Canadian claim on the arctic territories was never really accepted by most nations. It was simply never disputed because nobody gave a about who owned a bunch of frozen islands in the far north. Now that the ice is melting, EVERYONE is starting to care, and we Canadians, thanks to years of neglect, don't have any way of enforcing our claim. It's all well and good to say "we own this place, now pay us for going through!", but it takes the credible threat of force to be able to enforce such a statement. Don't expect anyone to take our claim seriously.
Ergo, everyone benefits