Please, name one country USA invaded since World War II, where American intervention brought democracy and freedom? In fact please, just name a country they invaded where the situation actually improved?
Ok, it's official, the G.I. Joes are staying there forever. All paid by the Americans taxpayers in benefit of the American corporations and in detriment of Afghan people.
Well, we all know in Europe you are very quick to call someone a coward when you have a gun in your hand and the other people doesn't. We do have a different word for that though, bullying.
Seems to me that their are as much risking the innocent lives of other people when they hide amongst them, as the Americans are when they shoot at them. It's their country, you have no business being there with your army, you are not welcome, and you don't have absolutely any moral authority telling people in their own country they cannot carry guns when you are waving them all around. Go fucking home and stop killing innocents for oil!
In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
I kind of remember a free and democratic society that 70 years ago put Hitler in power and supported ethical and religious discrimination with awful results. But according to your line of thought, they where completely right, after all it was a democratic decision.
but hell, when the guys with the AK47s are hiding in convoys of old women on donkeys, what exactly should they do ?
You mean, the guys with the AK47s are hiding in convoys of old women on donkeys in their own country that USA invaded? Well, I guess they are pretty much correct. IF someone invaded my country I would also try to get back at them... probably with AK47 smuggled in the country after the war started, cause unlike Americans we are not gun nuts and we don't all carry a gun to work in civilized Europe.
the colour resolution of the eye is far poorer than the b&w resolution of the eye
Hum, no, it doesn't work like that. Sorry but I think you are mixing angular resolution with light gathering capacity of the eye in colour and B&W, in that case yes, the cells that see in black and white (the bastonetes) have a better light gathering ability than the ones you use to see in colour (the cones). But you ability to discern 2 points, doesn't depend if they are black or white... what happens is that you cannot see the colour in cases of very dim light sources, you see them white (a dim star for instance, in that case you cannot tell if the star is blue, red or yellow, you can only discern the colours of stars if they are bright enough).
This all affair is silly, if you really look at it. Sure, the guy did something illegal (in USA, I'm not sure if it was illegal when it happened in UK) but the guy didn't harm anyone or anything.
But mostly this shows how outdated the laws of his Holy Majesty country are when it comes to respect the people. In practically any country of EU, (and I would bet, the civilized world), you cannot extradite you own citizen to be presented to trial in a country where the penalty for the crime committed could be higher than the one at your country. Which makes all the sense in a sovereign country that values it's citizens.
Of course that doesn't apply to British, as doesn't apply for instance the right not to pass at body scanners in Airports asking to be manually searched, or where all your lie in the city is a huge Big Brother novel with all the security cameras around. Then of course, they don't have this basic laws that protect us from the state called "Constitution", so how can they complain about all this?
Time to get rid of the queen and get a real constitution, eh mate!
Well, although I can certainly see your point. Most of the stuff you refer to don't really have interest for me.
I don't need 4G, since HDSPA in where I live is quite well developed and can deliver the 7.2 mbps Apple claims. I also don't care about AT&T since I'm not from USA. The removable battery... well, I've never ever in my life bought a spare battery for any mobile device... I usually sell them and buy new one before the battery gets too old (which lets be real, takes about 5 years to happen). I also think the multitasking should be made this way Apple is presenting (At least in theory since I haven't seen it in practice).
I do completely agree with the other 2 points tough. I would like to install whatever I want that exists outside App Store, and I would like to be able to use Micro SD cards.
Now, finally a Keynote from Steve about an existing product that finally delivers what people where asking for and some new great features. Front camera, better battery life, a flash (the one for photography not the software), HSDPA, better camera, noise cancelling mic.... all stuff that Apple could have put long ago. And some new cool stuff there people where hoping for but didn't believe much, like the big resolution bump of the screen.
Now, I get to wonder how many of the features where actually planed for this iteration of the iPhone, and how many Apple enginners where forced to put just because Steve didn't want to give only old Gizmodo news in his keynote?
I hope someone leaks the next iPad has well, a couple of months before the next major Apple presentation.
They didn't fire upon the van because it was civilians. They fired on the van erroneously identifying them as militants collecting weapons.
You are still choosing to believe something you are told (US combatants statements), instead of something you can actually see (the video in question).
And sorry to tell you, but in context or out of context, that van is clearly aiding the wounded survivors of the attack... that would be clear to anyone.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited video is? If according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context", since they claim the footage was taken out of context, right?
Well wrong, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over a civilian van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some other civilians.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited video is? I mean, if according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context", since they claim the footage was taken out of context, right?
Well wrong, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over a civilian van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some other civilians.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited video is? I mean, if according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context
Well wrong, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over a civilian van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some other civilians.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited videos is? I mean, if according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context
But, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over an civil van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some civilians.
But the mass-energy remains constant. Loss of mass in black hole = gain of energy from emitted photons
Yes, it remains constant in the universe, not within the black hole. In fact given enough time without accreting new mass, the black hole will dissipate. This was the most brilliant (of a long list of other brilliant) conclusion Stephen Hawking arrived; Not even black holes are eternal in case the Universe expands forever (and we already proved it will expand forever).
So this would suggest the darkmatter particle has no mass, travels faster than light or both?
Actually, none of the hypothesis. According to the article (and broader theory) it only means that either the distribution of dark matter in the galaxies is not has expected, or that it may be following a non Newtonian gravity law (yes, I know, we have something better than Newton laws nowadays, but the therm is used broadly to describe a theory in which the force of gravity doesn't decrease with the square root of the distance between masses).
By purchasing a ticket the buyer is implicitly agreeing to a whole phone-book worth of disclaimers, which usually includes the line "We reserve the right to remove you from the premise at any time without providing a reason.".
Hum, are you sure about this being legal? Mind you, I don't know well the laws in USA, but I think in any country of the EU this would be illegal. Even the organization of a public event can't deny the entrance to whoever wants to pay to attend it. They may only deny you entrance if you in that moment are being a threat to the event (like showing up clearly alcohoolised for instance, or denying to leave at the entrance some object that may be found dangerous). And as far as I know WWDC is a public event... as opposed to an invitation only event.
If you want a case where this can be taken to a stupid degree. Imagine a football them that would refuse the entrance in their stadium to the supporters of the opposing team. This would be obviously illegal.
P.S. - And I don't know about USA, but in EU, just because in the ticket or wherever it says something, it doesn't meant they can use it to break the law. So, they can come up with whatever rules they want printed in the ticket. But they are completely worthless if they disagree with the rights of the purchaser.
For all of us that wanted to delete our FaceBook profile, but couldn't because FaceBook hides it and plays around with the options so that we cannot do it. Well, now you have the answer. Just put some pictures of Mohamed sodomizing some sheep or similar and voilá.
Perhaps thins is one of this new privacy options Zuckberg talks about. "It's now possible to delete your own personal page." (Big cheers from the public)."
Man, it's atheism, not Agnosticism... you don't even know the difference.
What part of "faith" don't you get? There is no way to arrive at a conclusion that "there is no god" without a leap of faith - you can't prove that non-existence rationally.
Ahahahahah. So, let me tell you that I saw a flying spaghetti monster abducting cows yesterday in Lisbon. I hope you have FAITH that what I say is not true.
I don't need faith not to believe in some magic mumbo jumbo about a god a a jesus born from some virgin. I need common sense! And the Wikipedia definitions I gave are exactly has written in Wikipedia.
Man, atheism is no religion. Atheism is the absence of a religion. What a stupid argument you are giving to support religion. Do you see atheist gathering and praying? Making offerings to the gods? Following some mystical imposed rules? Believing in stuff they never seen and nobody can prove? NO! So it's NOT a religion, stop being idiot.
From Wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities".
From Wikipedia: "Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship[1], usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs".
Well, that's all nice, and I completely agree that the lack of free speech in the middle east is disgusting and so is the fact that muslin try to impose their culture on us every time they immigrate to our countries.
Having said that, the fact presented doesn't have anything to do with you (Americans) having been attacked by them. Wake up and smell the coffee. They didn't attack you because you don't follow their fate. They attack you because for the last 50 years you have been "pre-emptively" attacking them, stealing their natural resources, suporting with billions of dollars worth or armament every year Israel and their genocide in the region, disposing their leaders and getting new ones has you see fit. Giving weapons to different clans amongst them so that they kill eachother, (Iran-Iraq war) using them and their misery to fight your could war (Afghanistan-URSS war), and downright treating them as animals.
So basically, you, the Americans have been doing in Middle East, what you have been doing in Africa. With the difference, that in Middle East, they have the resources and the intelligence to get back at you, and that's what they did.
Like a great men said almost 50 years ago: One's people terrorists are other's people freedom fighters.
Yeah, but last time I saw, here in the west, the religious people (and I must tell you that these people really annoys me with their stupid beliefs and the stuff the say every time I say I'm an atheist), don't kill anyone if they don't accept their religion rules... they just don't become a part of their religion.
And if you cannot see how that's is much more morally and socially advanced than what muslin do... then there is something very wrong with you.
Big news. Europe is not a country. In some countries, the constitution forbids certain type of stuff. Like in German for instance, it's forbidden to bear any Nazi Symbol. Still, you just understand that we are talking about something terrible that happened about 60 years ago... not something that happened almost 2000 years ago. I can give some more time to Germans to get in peace with their past... but I'm not surely giving any more to Christians, Jews, Muslins, etc.
And yes, I also think the no blasphemy law in Ireland is simply ridiculous. But I'm glad to see that themselves find it ridiculous, and they continue to commit blasphemy happily and nobody even get's approached by the police because of it... talk about one more law without any practical application just to keep lawyers with jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, name one country USA invaded since World War II, where American intervention brought democracy and freedom? In fact please, just name a country they invaded where the situation actually improved?
Ok, it's official, the G.I. Joes are staying there forever. All paid by the Americans taxpayers in benefit of the American corporations and in detriment of Afghan people.
Well, we all know in Europe you are very quick to call someone a coward when you have a gun in your hand and the other people doesn't. We do have a different word for that though, bullying.
Seems to me that their are as much risking the innocent lives of other people when they hide amongst them, as the Americans are when they shoot at them. It's their country, you have no business being there with your army, you are not welcome, and you don't have absolutely any moral authority telling people in their own country they cannot carry guns when you are waving them all around. Go fucking home and stop killing innocents for oil!
In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
I kind of remember a free and democratic society that 70 years ago put Hitler in power and supported ethical and religious discrimination with awful results. But according to your line of thought, they where completely right, after all it was a democratic decision.
but hell, when the guys with the AK47s are hiding in convoys of old women on donkeys, what exactly should they do ?
You mean, the guys with the AK47s are hiding in convoys of old women on donkeys in their own country that USA invaded? ... probably with AK47 smuggled in the country after the war started, cause unlike Americans we are not gun nuts and we don't all carry a gun to work in civilized Europe.
Well, I guess they are pretty much correct. IF someone invaded my country I would also try to get back at them
the colour resolution of the eye is far poorer than the b&w resolution of the eye
Hum, no, it doesn't work like that. Sorry but I think you are mixing angular resolution with light gathering capacity of the eye in colour and B&W, in that case yes, the cells that see in black and white (the bastonetes) have a better light gathering ability than the ones you use to see in colour (the cones). But you ability to discern 2 points, doesn't depend if they are black or white ... what happens is that you cannot see the colour in cases of very dim light sources, you see them white (a dim star for instance, in that case you cannot tell if the star is blue, red or yellow, you can only discern the colours of stars if they are bright enough).
This all affair is silly, if you really look at it. Sure, the guy did something illegal (in USA, I'm not sure if it was illegal when it happened in UK) but the guy didn't harm anyone or anything.
But mostly this shows how outdated the laws of his Holy Majesty country are when it comes to respect the people. In practically any country of EU, (and I would bet, the civilized world), you cannot extradite you own citizen to be presented to trial in a country where the penalty for the crime committed could be higher than the one at your country. Which makes all the sense in a sovereign country that values it's citizens.
Of course that doesn't apply to British, as doesn't apply for instance the right not to pass at body scanners in Airports asking to be manually searched, or where all your lie in the city is a huge Big Brother novel with all the security cameras around. Then of course, they don't have this basic laws that protect us from the state called "Constitution", so how can they complain about all this?
Time to get rid of the queen and get a real constitution, eh mate!
Well, although I can certainly see your point. Most of the stuff you refer to don't really have interest for me.
I don't need 4G, since HDSPA in where I live is quite well developed and can deliver the 7.2 mbps Apple claims. I also don't care about AT&T since I'm not from USA. The removable battery ... well, I've never ever in my life bought a spare battery for any mobile device ... I usually sell them and buy new one before the battery gets too old (which lets be real, takes about 5 years to happen). I also think the multitasking should be made this way Apple is presenting (At least in theory since I haven't seen it in practice).
I do completely agree with the other 2 points tough. I would like to install whatever I want that exists outside App Store, and I would like to be able to use Micro SD cards.
Now, finally a Keynote from Steve about an existing product that finally delivers what people where asking for and some new great features. Front camera, better battery life, a flash (the one for photography not the software), HSDPA, better camera, noise cancelling mic .... all stuff that Apple could have put long ago. And some new cool stuff there people where hoping for but didn't believe much, like the big resolution bump of the screen.
Now, I get to wonder how many of the features where actually planed for this iteration of the iPhone, and how many Apple enginners where forced to put just because Steve didn't want to give only old Gizmodo news in his keynote?
I hope someone leaks the next iPad has well, a couple of months before the next major Apple presentation.
They didn't fire upon the van because it was civilians. They fired on the van erroneously identifying them as militants collecting weapons.
You are still choosing to believe something you are told (US combatants statements), instead of something you can actually see (the video in question).
And sorry to tell you, but in context or out of context, that van is clearly aiding the wounded survivors of the attack ... that would be clear to anyone.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited video is? If according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim ... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context", since they claim the footage was taken out of context, right?
Well wrong, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over a civilian van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some other civilians.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited video is? I mean, if according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim ... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context", since they claim the footage was taken out of context, right?
Well wrong, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over a civilian van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some other civilians.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited video is? I mean, if according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim ... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context
Well wrong, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over a civilian van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some other civilians.
Really. Can you please point me to somewhere that un-edited videos is? I mean, if according to "sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack" they where being so nice guys and protecting innocents has they claim ... then only if for a matter of PR, the USA army would have shown all the footage to "put it in context
But, guess what, there is no complete video to be seen, the US army doesn't present one, and there are actually some people, like you, that are trusting the word of some US army combatants that you just see firing over an civil van trying to provide assistance to wounded people, when they say that minutes before they where protecting some civilians.
But the mass-energy remains constant. Loss of mass in black hole = gain of energy from emitted photons
Yes, it remains constant in the universe, not within the black hole. In fact given enough time without accreting new mass, the black hole will dissipate. This was the most brilliant (of a long list of other brilliant) conclusion Stephen Hawking arrived; Not even black holes are eternal in case the Universe expands forever (and we already proved it will expand forever).
So this would suggest the darkmatter particle has no mass, travels faster than light or both?
Actually, none of the hypothesis. According to the article (and broader theory) it only means that either the distribution of dark matter in the galaxies is not has expected, or that it may be following a non Newtonian gravity law (yes, I know, we have something better than Newton laws nowadays, but the therm is used broadly to describe a theory in which the force of gravity doesn't decrease with the square root of the distance between masses).
By purchasing a ticket the buyer is implicitly agreeing to a whole phone-book worth of disclaimers, which usually includes the line "We reserve the right to remove you from the premise at any time without providing a reason.".
Hum, are you sure about this being legal? Mind you, I don't know well the laws in USA, but I think in any country of the EU this would be illegal. Even the organization of a public event can't deny the entrance to whoever wants to pay to attend it. They may only deny you entrance if you in that moment are being a threat to the event (like showing up clearly alcohoolised for instance, or denying to leave at the entrance some object that may be found dangerous). And as far as I know WWDC is a public event ... as opposed to an invitation only event.
If you want a case where this can be taken to a stupid degree. Imagine a football them that would refuse the entrance in their stadium to the supporters of the opposing team. This would be obviously illegal.
P.S. - And I don't know about USA, but in EU, just because in the ticket or wherever it says something, it doesn't meant they can use it to break the law. So, they can come up with whatever rules they want printed in the ticket. But they are completely worthless if they disagree with the rights of the purchaser.
For all of us that wanted to delete our FaceBook profile, but couldn't because FaceBook hides it and plays around with the options so that we cannot do it. Well, now you have the answer. Just put some pictures of Mohamed sodomizing some sheep or similar and voilá.
Perhaps thins is one of this new privacy options Zuckberg talks about. "It's now possible to delete your own personal page." (Big cheers from the public)."
Just because you don't like to read it, it doesn't make it less true.
Man, it's atheism, not Agnosticism ... you don't even know the difference.
What part of "faith" don't you get? There is no way to arrive at a conclusion that "there is no god" without a leap of faith - you can't prove that non-existence rationally.
Ahahahahah. So, let me tell you that I saw a flying spaghetti monster abducting cows yesterday in Lisbon. I hope you have FAITH that what I say is not true.
I don't need faith not to believe in some magic mumbo jumbo about a god a a jesus born from some virgin. I need common sense! And the Wikipedia definitions I gave are exactly has written in Wikipedia.
Man, atheism is no religion. Atheism is the absence of a religion. What a stupid argument you are giving to support religion. Do you see atheist gathering and praying? Making offerings to the gods? Following some mystical imposed rules? Believing in stuff they never seen and nobody can prove? NO! So it's NOT a religion, stop being idiot.
From Wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities".
From Wikipedia: "Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship[1], usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs".
Well, that's all nice, and I completely agree that the lack of free speech in the middle east is disgusting and so is the fact that muslin try to impose their culture on us every time they immigrate to our countries.
Having said that, the fact presented doesn't have anything to do with you (Americans) having been attacked by them. Wake up and smell the coffee. They didn't attack you because you don't follow their fate. They attack you because for the last 50 years you have been "pre-emptively" attacking them, stealing their natural resources, suporting with billions of dollars worth or armament every year Israel and their genocide in the region, disposing their leaders and getting new ones has you see fit. Giving weapons to different clans amongst them so that they kill eachother, (Iran-Iraq war) using them and their misery to fight your could war (Afghanistan-URSS war), and downright treating them as animals.
So basically, you, the Americans have been doing in Middle East, what you have been doing in Africa. With the difference, that in Middle East, they have the resources and the intelligence to get back at you, and that's what they did.
Like a great men said almost 50 years ago: One's people terrorists are other's people freedom fighters.
Stupidity is not only found in religion.
Yes, but in religion you always find stupidity.
Yeah, but last time I saw, here in the west, the religious people (and I must tell you that these people really annoys me with their stupid beliefs and the stuff the say every time I say I'm an atheist), don't kill anyone if they don't accept their religion rules ... they just don't become a part of their religion.
And if you cannot see how that's is much more morally and socially advanced than what muslin do ... then there is something very wrong with you.
Big news. Europe is not a country. In some countries, the constitution forbids certain type of stuff. Like in German for instance, it's forbidden to bear any Nazi Symbol. Still, you just understand that we are talking about something terrible that happened about 60 years ago ... not something that happened almost 2000 years ago. I can give some more time to Germans to get in peace with their past ... but I'm not surely giving any more to Christians, Jews, Muslins, etc.
And yes, I also think the no blasphemy law in Ireland is simply ridiculous. But I'm glad to see that themselves find it ridiculous, and they continue to commit blasphemy happily and nobody even get's approached by the police because of it ... talk about one more law without any practical application just to keep lawyers with jobs.