I would have to say that people who take themselves out of the gene pool (Matthew Carrington, I'm looking in your direction here) by willfully making unbelievably stupid choices are the best "bugs".
They become features when the story of their undoing appears on the news, and serves to provide hem masses with an almost endless supply of joke material.
The only thing worse than buggy code are buggy humans.
I agree with the "Do Not Archive" argument. Also, I wonder if anyone has challenged the validity of the rulings that Turnitin.com makes on papers. Does it cite articles that it thinks the works may have been copie from, or does it just simply say "Fake" and assign a number thet it thinks is appropriate.
Just because a website's algorithm says that a paper is "Likely Plagiarized" does not mean that it is plagiarism. Now, if a teacher marked parts of my paper as being "Plagiarism", would you just let it go, or would you ask them to prove the parts in question were plagiarized?
Teachers that take a website's "Plagiarism Probablility" as a definite rule of plagiarism are obviously not intelligent enough to be teachers.
Good point. Maybe if they took all the money they give to people who are unproductive (read: welfare, blatantly and oviously inflated government contracts, lawmaker salaries) and use it in ways that ARE productive, I'm pretty sure that we could come up with some amazingly cool (and fun) stuff.
Ate cakes laced with cyanide, was shot three times, was stabbed (I think) and then tied up and thrown into the Volga River, where it was later determined, after finding water in Rasputin's lungs, that he died from drowning.
Has anybody ever understood that germs are a good thing? Ok, I know some people might think that I am being gross, but germs are why we are here today.
People don't understand that by having EVERYTHING, EVERY surface, EVERY food, and drink super-duper sanitized, we are doing more harm to ourselves than if we were not. Germs are what gives our immune system its effectiveness, and by reducing things it has to fight against, it loses the opportinities to recognize, learn about, and fight off foreign invaders.
People NEED to get sick. Period. There is no logical argument against that. The more sanitary we get, the sicker we become. Humans evolved through experiences with germs. If germs were as evil as a thing as we are being led to believe, then the human race, and just about all life, would not exist today. Immunity from diseases cannot be taught. Human beings can only learn how to fight off an illness by experiencing it.
Unfortunately, being anti-germ is a socially and politically correct thing to do, because your average idiot doesn't understand that you can beat your enemy be using it.
People NEED to get sick. People NEED to die. It's how he human race got to where it is, and now we are destroying the very germs we need to maintain effective immune systems. No drug can replace an immune system.
Sunglasses that change darkness? Yawn. So what? they'll just make the cost prohibitively expensive, making the invention pretty useless as an everyday thing.
What we *REALLY* need is a pair of glasses that change shade, color, a heads-up-display, bluetooth, defog, AND have a neat-o pair of windshield wipers built in. THEN I'll shovel out the cash.
A big fake rubber nose and fake bushy eyebrows would be a bonus!
The "Internet" started out as DARPANET (Defense Advancerd Research Projects Agency)
George H. W. Bush signed the act that started the prcoess of moving the Internet (then completely under DARPA) into the civilian sector.
What Clinton did was to mandate Internet access in every scool, although I remember using FREdMail on some really old PC or Apple (I think it was an Apple ][ with the big ol' 5.25" floppies), and that was BEFORE Clinton, so the Internet was definitly wide open to civilians before Clinton, since I doubt the DoD would let a bunch of 3rd graders send emails on a Defense network.
The Internet would still be the same Internet, regardless of a Democrat or Republican. Your stereotype does your argument no justice. Once GHWB signed the act, the Internet concept had it's own momentum and took off from there. It's not the government that made it what it is, it's the people using it. Once the network became available, companies and people started to innovate on their own and the network evolved into the Internet.
Interestingly, CERN (the same place with the uber-fun particle accelerator) unveiled their new World Wide Web project in August 1991. Tim Berners-Lee had already begun creating web pages, HTTP, and HTML two years before. The internet developed for the same reasons that most government-created technologies do: Price, affordability, expandability, and most imporatantly, public interest and demand. So, if the public World Wide Web existed all around the world, how did the Democratic Party "create" it a year after it began in Switzerland? If the World Wide Web, which is the present public form of the internet, began as a public entity before a Democratic president was in power, how is Clinton responsible for it's current form as it is today before he even took office? The only significant credit Clinton can take is bringing mandatory Internet access to all U.S. educational institutions. (I would also like to thank him for making Playboy and Hustler accessible during recess! Thank you, Bubba!).
If the Democrats were responsible for the Internet, who do I complain to about all the beasiality, porn, and drug sites that my hacked and hijacked browser keeps throwing up?
But I will award you a couple of points for trying to turn this into a Democrat-Republican argument though, even though the Democratic and Republican Parties never had anything to do with it. The fact that a Republican president started the process doesn't even bring merit to one Party or the other.
If you are going to politicize something, don't do it here. Find another place to post your political crap.....like an outhouse.
FACTOID: DARPA, the primary predecessor to the Internet, started under Eisenhower (a Republican) in 1958. Party affiliation had nothing to do with the "creation" of the internet (or DARPA), but since you seem to think about things in terms of Republicans versus Democrats, I just thought you would like to know that.
We may not be the "Technology King" (at least, according to the World Econimic Forum), but we did figure out how to file lawsuits faster than the speed of light!
Build breeder reactors and recycle the useless spent nuclear fuel back into fresh nuclear fuel.
Oh wait..... That asshat Jimmy Carter BANNED them because his tree-hugging bedfellows asked him to. Looks like we have to bury it in the ground now.
I don't get it- The environmentalists asked him to ban the construction and use of breeder reactors because they wanted to be more environmentally freindly and didn't like the very tiny miniscule amount of byproduct, yet now we can't recycle ANY of our nuclear waste and have to bury ALL of it in the environment. So how are they being "environmentally freindly"? I sure wish they'd get there argument straight.
"'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'"
And.....
"Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
----- -1984. Geroge Orwell.
What's *REALLY* creepy is how 1984 takes place in London, and now this "Telescreen"/Talking/Thinking camera technology is being developed AND widely implemented there (just like the fictional Telescreens in 1984). It's horrifying how much the U.K. is beginning to parallel 1984.
Institute Democracy again? We already have one, and (somehow) it works. Just because the Democracy we have doesn't do what you want doesn't mean it isn't there. Democracy is here. Should we keep throwing out democracies until we get one that does what *you* want? Or, is a successful democracy one that follows *your* beliefs and *your* viewpoints?
"Hmmmmm..... The democracy we have isn't doing what I want, and therefore isn't a democracy, or even a successful one. I know, I'll just say that it has failed as a way to justify my viewpoints and overthow it! Then, when the dust settles, we can institute a real democracy that does what we want!"
Sounds pretty Dictatorial to me. A Democracy that does only what you want isn't a Democracy.
Workplace collectives? Is that the new, politically-correct term for a commune? Workplace Democracy means getting out what you put in, and being able to make yourself more successful than the slacker next to you. Taking things away from Person A who is successful and giving them to Person B who is less successful and saying that it is practicing equality isn't actually practicing equality OR democracy, since Person A worked earned to become successful and Person B didn't. Taking from someone who is more successful and giving it to someone who isn't, is NOT practicing eqaulity or democracy. Person A put in a large amount of effort (say 100 hours) and got a large amount of money in return (say $1000). Person B put in a small amount of effort (say 50 hours) and got a small amount of money ($500) in return. Both Person A and Person B recieved equal amounts of money depending on the amount of money they put in. Equality has been practiced, and Democracy has been practiced. When you take away money from somone who put in more work than someone else, you are not being equal and you are not practicing democracy.
Just because an employee does manual labor doesn't mean he works harder than another employee who works at a desk.
I think that you are just jealous of people who have been more successful than you, as it is plainly visible. You don't like having a supervisor or manager telling you what to do, which is pretty obvious from your "Non-hierarchal" standpoint. Non-heirarchal collective? You mean, a commune where everybody gets the same thing, allowing people to slack off while others do the work, and since everybody is at the same level, regardless of skill or seniority, nobody can tell the slackers to get off their asses and work.
Instead of giving the patents to not-for-profit groups, whic hare just going to let them sit idle as Cash Cows, and entrepeneurs who are going to use them in a way that still stifles innovation, why not put them in a giant "pool", where anybody can use them, royalty-free, and not have to worry about "patent infringement" and stifled innovation?
If the patents are put into a pool, then they can be patents "in the name or business" where nobody has to worry about their idea being infringed on, or infringing on other. Basically, the general public would be the patent-holders, and therefore, anybody could use the technology. Since the patents still exist, the technology could not be restricetd BY ANYONE, including not-for-profit groups.
Does anybody with a brain AND a backbone care about what Greenpeace thinks? These are the same idiots who parade around the globe condemning anything that is environmentally unfreindly in a converted, bunker-oil fueled deep-sea fishing ship. Wow, I guess its O.K. to impact the environment significantly if you are telling people it's not O.K. for everyone else to do it. Maybe if they switched to nuclear power.....oh wait.
Anyways, Greenpeace is made up of nothing of extremists who are trying to impose their views upon us all, wheather we like it or not, with the possiblity of a very few actually rational people. They are just another alarmist group who craves publicity by inciting fear about everyday things: Food, water, our homes, and just about every facet of our everyday lives. They accomplish this by twisting real facts that disprove their arguments into new, false "facts" that support their arguments. I'm not saying the every single thing that Greenpeace says is pure fiction, I'm saying that most of what they say is mostly taken out of context and twisted in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs.
GreenPeace has lost credit with rational people because of the hypocritical things they do. Hre are a couple:
---They don't support the burning of fossil fuels, but they will cruise around the globe in a giant ship fueled by bunker oil. They aren't burning fuel to move any product or conduct any trade, just so they can harass and disrupt legitimate ocean traffic. Burning BUNKER OIL (which is so thick and heavy that it has to be melted before it can be burned in an engine) just to be a disruption is even more a way of wastefully polluting thant anything else.
---They promote cleaner, more efficient energy generation, but condemn all other types of energy generation other than solar as being environmentally destructive, yet solar energy is not very efficient, and requires energy storage for cloudy days in large lead-acid batteries, which contain environmentally harmful chemicals, and requires massive tracts of open space to be developed to be of any practical large-scale use.
---They condemn the use of PMBR reactors, because they are nuclear reactors, and anything nuclear will result in another Chernobyl. Nuclear power is THE cleanest form of energy generation we have.
Nobody gives a damn to environmental groups because they are composed mostly of extremists (not every activist is an extremists. I'm not calling supporters extremists. I'm calling the nutjobs who say that everything we do is dangerous and how we must change out ways or else the end of the world is coming.) and weak-minded individuals who will believe anything that they are told, becuase either they believe it, or everyone else believes it, regardless of how irrational it is. The biggest irony with environmental groups is probably nuclear power. Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient source of energy there is. Period. GreenPeace and anti-nuclear groups condemn nuclear power becuase it generates huge amounts of nuclear waste. Yet, they fail to mention that they were the source of influence that pressured Jimmy Carter into signing a bill that explicitly forbade the construction of breeder reactors that are used to turn nuclear waste back into nuclear fuel.
About the grain.....
Anybody knows that ANYTHING in a large enough amount is toxic - even oxygen and water. It's just another tactic used by environmental groups as ways of scaring society into believing their ways. Society doesn't believe in their ways because we either don't care, and/or don't believe the validity of their claims. GreenPeace has to resort to scare tactics becuase their claims are so grandiose, blown out of proportion, or factually twisted. GreenPeace won't mention facts that disprove their views, you can bet on that. They won't mention anything that will harm their argument. And that's why nobody cares about them.
Hmmm..... I think that you can now understand the hypocrisy that these alarmist groups spew. It is no w
If you visit Crook's blog page, it shows a video of Emma Watson, with the following caption:
----- "The new Harry Potter book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," due July 21, will have 12 million copies printed in the first run.
Of course, it will be made into a movie eventually, and one of the stars, to the left, is Emma Watson.
On April 15th, she will be legal in New York State, where the age of consent is 17.
Just sayin' is all. She's already legal across the pond." -----
Being *SUCH* a legal genius, I'm sure Michael knows that just because someone is of the age of consent does not mean that they are not a MINOR.
If this guy is so against perverts, why is he posting crap like that? Explicitly implying to have sex with her, even though she is a M-I-N-O-R ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the guy who went out of his way to humiliate people who went on Craigslst looking for sex? Apparently, looking for sex is morally wrong, yet announcing that at minor has reached the age of consent at 17 and that she "...is legal" is not.
Hmmm.....
Clearly, this poor aminal is in need of medication..... by that only the.45 caliber easy-to-swallow kind can cure.
The real pathetic part is if you look at the upper-left part of his webwite where is has a less-than-flattering picture of him, with comments next to it. Every time the page reloads, the comments change. I was trying it out just to see what kind of crap he claims people say about him when the following comment appeared right next to his picture:
"'Mike is bringing sexy back!'-- D.B."
Michael Crook: A Living Tribute To Pathetic Wannabees.
Wow. This guy realy is desparate to make a name for himself. So much that his website is clearly a desparate attempt to make his name a household name, and one that is something people will talk about like he is some kind of hero.
Ironically, the settlement was a bigger, more effective takedown than his notices were.
Slashdot Mirror
Me: "No, seriously, Doc..... The voices really *are* in my head....."
Doctor: "Sure they are."
Me: "No, I'm not kidding."
Doctor: "Well, then. Tell me, what are these voices telling you?"
Me: "The Oakland Raiders won the Super Bowl."
Doctor: "Sure they did....."
(brief buzzing sound)
(two big burly guys in white coats burst in through the door and drag me off to a padded room)
----------
Man, talk about being able to get into someone's head!
Now offering: Bank By Brain
I wouldn't mind publicly hanging terrorists and pedophiles.
What's wrong with that?
-----
In a concurrent study, 48% of the United States was found to be idiots.
I don't know why people can't get it through their heads.
I would have to say that people who take themselves out of the gene pool (Matthew Carrington, I'm looking in your direction here) by willfully making unbelievably stupid choices are the best "bugs".
They become features when the story of their undoing appears on the news, and serves to provide hem masses with an almost endless supply of joke material.
The only thing worse than buggy code are buggy humans.
I agree with the "Do Not Archive" argument. Also, I wonder if anyone has challenged the validity of the rulings that Turnitin.com makes on papers. Does it cite articles that it thinks the works may have been copie from, or does it just simply say "Fake" and assign a number thet it thinks is appropriate.
Just because a website's algorithm says that a paper is "Likely Plagiarized" does not mean that it is plagiarism. Now, if a teacher marked parts of my paper as being "Plagiarism", would you just let it go, or would you ask them to prove the parts in question were plagiarized?
Teachers that take a website's "Plagiarism Probablility" as a definite rule of plagiarism are obviously not intelligent enough to be teachers.
Good point. Maybe if they took all the money they give to people who are unproductive (read: welfare, blatantly and oviously inflated government contracts, lawmaker salaries) and use it in ways that ARE productive, I'm pretty sure that we could come up with some amazingly cool (and fun) stuff.
If memory serves me correct, Rasputin:
Ate cakes laced with cyanide, was shot three times, was stabbed (I think) and then tied up and thrown into the Volga River, where it was later determined, after finding water in Rasputin's lungs, that he died from drowning.
Has anybody ever understood that germs are a good thing? Ok, I know some people might think that I am being gross, but germs are why we are here today.
People don't understand that by having EVERYTHING, EVERY surface, EVERY food, and drink super-duper sanitized, we are doing more harm to ourselves than if we were not. Germs are what gives our immune system its effectiveness, and by reducing things it has to fight against, it loses the opportinities to recognize, learn about, and fight off foreign invaders.
People NEED to get sick. Period. There is no logical argument against that. The more sanitary we get, the sicker we become. Humans evolved through experiences with germs. If germs were as evil as a thing as we are being led to believe, then the human race, and just about all life, would not exist today. Immunity from diseases cannot be taught. Human beings can only learn how to fight off an illness by experiencing it.
Unfortunately, being anti-germ is a socially and politically correct thing to do, because your average idiot doesn't understand that you can beat your enemy be using it.
People NEED to get sick. People NEED to die. It's how he human race got to where it is, and now we are destroying the very germs we need to maintain effective immune systems. No drug can replace an immune system.
Sunglasses that change darkness? Yawn. So what? they'll just make the cost prohibitively expensive, making the invention pretty useless as an everyday thing.
What we *REALLY* need is a pair of glasses that change shade, color, a heads-up-display, bluetooth, defog, AND have a neat-o pair of windshield wipers built in. THEN I'll shovel out the cash.
A big fake rubber nose and fake bushy eyebrows would be a bonus!
'Hind'-sight is always 20/20!
Ok, I know, bad pun.
Thanks for the thought though!
The only truly smart sunglasses will be able to skitter off of my seat before I sit down on them. That, and when to fold in poker.
Wrong. It was not Clinton, or Al Gore.
The "Internet" started out as DARPANET (Defense Advancerd Research Projects Agency)
George H. W. Bush signed the act that started the prcoess of moving the Internet (then completely under DARPA) into the civilian sector.
What Clinton did was to mandate Internet access in every scool, although I remember using FREdMail on some really old PC or Apple (I think it was an Apple ][ with the big ol' 5.25" floppies), and that was BEFORE Clinton, so the Internet was definitly wide open to civilians before Clinton, since I doubt the DoD would let a bunch of 3rd graders send emails on a Defense network.
The Internet would still be the same Internet, regardless of a Democrat or Republican. Your stereotype does your argument no justice. Once GHWB signed the act, the Internet concept had it's own momentum and took off from there. It's not the government that made it what it is, it's the people using it. Once the network became available, companies and people started to innovate on their own and the network evolved into the Internet.
Interestingly, CERN (the same place with the uber-fun particle accelerator) unveiled their new World Wide Web project in August 1991. Tim Berners-Lee had already begun creating web pages, HTTP, and HTML two years before. The internet developed for the same reasons that most government-created technologies do: Price, affordability, expandability, and most imporatantly, public interest and demand. So, if the public World Wide Web existed all around the world, how did the Democratic Party "create" it a year after it began in Switzerland? If the World Wide Web, which is the present public form of the internet, began as a public entity before a Democratic president was in power, how is Clinton responsible for it's current form as it is today before he even took office? The only significant credit Clinton can take is bringing mandatory Internet access to all U.S. educational institutions. (I would also like to thank him for making Playboy and Hustler accessible during recess! Thank you, Bubba!).
If the Democrats were responsible for the Internet, who do I complain to about all the beasiality, porn, and drug sites that my hacked and hijacked browser keeps throwing up?
But I will award you a couple of points for trying to turn this into a Democrat-Republican argument though, even though the Democratic and Republican Parties never had anything to do with it. The fact that a Republican president started the process doesn't even bring merit to one Party or the other.
If you are going to politicize something, don't do it here. Find another place to post your political crap.....like an outhouse.
FACTOID: DARPA, the primary predecessor to the Internet, started under Eisenhower (a Republican) in 1958. Party affiliation had nothing to do with the "creation" of the internet (or DARPA), but since you seem to think about things in terms of Republicans versus Democrats, I just thought you would like to know that.
We may not be the "Technology King" (at least, according to the World Econimic Forum), but we did figure out how to file lawsuits faster than the speed of light!
Soon, the complete idiots who build their homes next to airports and then complain about all the noise will have another thing to whine about.
Here's an idea that has been around for DECADES:
Build breeder reactors and recycle the useless spent nuclear fuel back into fresh nuclear fuel.
Oh wait..... That asshat Jimmy Carter BANNED them because his tree-hugging bedfellows asked him to. Looks like we have to bury it in the ground now.
I don't get it- The environmentalists asked him to ban the construction and use of breeder reactors because they wanted to be more environmentally freindly and didn't like the very tiny miniscule amount of byproduct, yet now we can't recycle ANY of our nuclear waste and have to bury ALL of it in the environment. So how are they being "environmentally freindly"? I sure wish they'd get there argument straight.
"'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.'"
And.....
"Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
----- -1984. Geroge Orwell.
What's *REALLY* creepy is how 1984 takes place in London, and now this "Telescreen"/Talking/Thinking camera technology is being developed AND widely implemented there (just like the fictional Telescreens in 1984). It's horrifying how much the U.K. is beginning to parallel 1984.
Institute Democracy again? We already have one, and (somehow) it works. Just because the Democracy we have doesn't do what you want doesn't mean it isn't there. Democracy is here. Should we keep throwing out democracies until we get one that does what *you* want? Or, is a successful democracy one that follows *your* beliefs and *your* viewpoints?
"Hmmmmm..... The democracy we have isn't doing what I want, and therefore isn't a democracy, or even a successful one. I know, I'll just say that it has failed as a way to justify my viewpoints and overthow it! Then, when the dust settles, we can institute a real democracy that does what we want!"
Sounds pretty Dictatorial to me. A Democracy that does only what you want isn't a Democracy.
Workplace collectives? Is that the new, politically-correct term for a commune? Workplace Democracy means getting out what you put in, and being able to make yourself more successful than the slacker next to you. Taking things away from Person A who is successful and giving them to Person B who is less successful and saying that it is practicing equality isn't actually practicing equality OR democracy, since Person A worked earned to become successful and Person B didn't. Taking from someone who is more successful and giving it to someone who isn't, is NOT practicing eqaulity or democracy. Person A put in a large amount of effort (say 100 hours) and got a large amount of money in return (say $1000). Person B put in a small amount of effort (say 50 hours) and got a small amount of money ($500) in return. Both Person A and Person B recieved equal amounts of money depending on the amount of money they put in. Equality has been practiced, and Democracy has been practiced. When you take away money from somone who put in more work than someone else, you are not being equal and you are not practicing democracy.
Just because an employee does manual labor doesn't mean he works harder than another employee who works at a desk.
I think that you are just jealous of people who have been more successful than you, as it is plainly visible. You don't like having a supervisor or manager telling you what to do, which is pretty obvious from your "Non-hierarchal" standpoint. Non-heirarchal collective? You mean, a commune where everybody gets the same thing, allowing people to slack off while others do the work, and since everybody is at the same level, regardless of skill or seniority, nobody can tell the slackers to get off their asses and work.
BTW..... Democracy works, just not for you.
It would also be alot more entertaining.
Here is a cheaper way: Lock your manager in the server room. No need for any special compressors.
Instead of giving the patents to not-for-profit groups, whic hare just going to let them sit idle as Cash Cows, and entrepeneurs who are going to use them in a way that still stifles innovation, why not put them in a giant "pool", where anybody can use them, royalty-free, and not have to worry about "patent infringement" and stifled innovation?
If the patents are put into a pool, then they can be patents "in the name or business" where nobody has to worry about their idea being infringed on, or infringing on other. Basically, the general public would be the patent-holders, and therefore, anybody could use the technology. Since the patents still exist, the technology could not be restricetd BY ANYONE, including not-for-profit groups.
Yeah, driving games spur risky driving just as much as Burger Time caused risky eating.
BTW..... Does anybody else remember playing that on the NES, or is it just me?
And to think that we couldn't get our porn fast enough.....
Does anybody with a brain AND a backbone care about what Greenpeace thinks? These are the same idiots who parade around the globe condemning anything that is environmentally unfreindly in a converted, bunker-oil fueled deep-sea fishing ship. Wow, I guess its O.K. to impact the environment significantly if you are telling people it's not O.K. for everyone else to do it. Maybe if they switched to nuclear power.....oh wait.
Anyways, Greenpeace is made up of nothing of extremists who are trying to impose their views upon us all, wheather we like it or not, with the possiblity of a very few actually rational people. They are just another alarmist group who craves publicity by inciting fear about everyday things: Food, water, our homes, and just about every facet of our everyday lives. They accomplish this by twisting real facts that disprove their arguments into new, false "facts" that support their arguments. I'm not saying the every single thing that Greenpeace says is pure fiction, I'm saying that most of what they say is mostly taken out of context and twisted in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs.
GreenPeace has lost credit with rational people because of the hypocritical things they do. Hre are a couple:
---They don't support the burning of fossil fuels, but they will cruise around the globe in a giant ship fueled by bunker oil. They aren't burning fuel to move any product or conduct any trade, just so they can harass and disrupt legitimate ocean traffic. Burning BUNKER OIL (which is so thick and heavy that it has to be melted before it can be burned in an engine) just to be a disruption is even more a way of wastefully polluting thant anything else.
---They promote cleaner, more efficient energy generation, but condemn all other types of energy generation other than solar as being environmentally destructive, yet solar energy is not very efficient, and requires energy storage for cloudy days in large lead-acid batteries, which contain environmentally harmful chemicals, and requires massive tracts of open space to be developed to be of any practical large-scale use.
---They condemn the use of PMBR reactors, because they are nuclear reactors, and anything nuclear will result in another Chernobyl. Nuclear power is THE cleanest form of energy generation we have.
Nobody gives a damn to environmental groups because they are composed mostly of extremists (not every activist is an extremists. I'm not calling supporters extremists. I'm calling the nutjobs who say that everything we do is dangerous and how we must change out ways or else the end of the world is coming.) and weak-minded individuals who will believe anything that they are told, becuase either they believe it, or everyone else believes it, regardless of how irrational it is. The biggest irony with environmental groups is probably nuclear power. Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient source of energy there is. Period. GreenPeace and anti-nuclear groups condemn nuclear power becuase it generates huge amounts of nuclear waste. Yet, they fail to mention that they were the source of influence that pressured Jimmy Carter into signing a bill that explicitly forbade the construction of breeder reactors that are used to turn nuclear waste back into nuclear fuel.
About the grain.....
Anybody knows that ANYTHING in a large enough amount is toxic - even oxygen and water. It's just another tactic used by environmental groups as ways of scaring society into believing their ways. Society doesn't believe in their ways because we either don't care, and/or don't believe the validity of their claims. GreenPeace has to resort to scare tactics becuase their claims are so grandiose, blown out of proportion, or factually twisted. GreenPeace won't mention facts that disprove their views, you can bet on that. They won't mention anything that will harm their argument. And that's why nobody cares about them.
Hmmm..... I think that you can now understand the hypocrisy that these alarmist groups spew. It is no w
If you visit Crook's blog page, it shows a video of Emma Watson, with the following caption:
.45 caliber easy-to-swallow kind can cure.
-----
"The new Harry Potter book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," due July 21, will have 12 million copies printed in the first run.
Of course, it will be made into a movie eventually, and one of the stars, to the left, is Emma Watson.
On April 15th, she will be legal in New York State, where the age of consent is 17.
Just sayin' is all. She's already legal across the pond."
-----
Being *SUCH* a legal genius, I'm sure Michael knows that just because someone is of the age of consent does not mean that they are not a MINOR.
If this guy is so against perverts, why is he posting crap like that? Explicitly implying to have sex with her, even though she is a M-I-N-O-R ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the guy who went out of his way to humiliate people who went on Craigslst looking for sex? Apparently, looking for sex is morally wrong, yet announcing that at minor has reached the age of consent at 17 and that she "...is legal" is not.
Hmmm.....
Clearly, this poor aminal is in need of medication..... by that only the
The real pathetic part is if you look at the upper-left part of his webwite where is has a less-than-flattering picture of him, with comments next to it. Every time the page reloads, the comments change. I was trying it out just to see what kind of crap he claims people say about him when the following comment appeared right next to his picture:
"'Mike is bringing sexy back!'-- D.B."
Michael Crook: A Living Tribute To Pathetic Wannabees.
Wow. This guy realy is desparate to make a name for himself. So much that his website is clearly a desparate attempt to make his name a household name, and one that is something people will talk about like he is some kind of hero.
Ironically, the settlement was a bigger, more effective takedown than his notices were.
Whatever.
REAL "Internal Combution" increases come from drowning a jalapeno taco from the BurritoMobile across the street in Tabasco sauce.
Granted, you won't get very many miles per gallon out of it before you have to stop.....