"Influenza
o The "Asiatic Flu", 1889-1890. Was first reported in May of 1889 in Bukhara, Russia. By October, it had reached Tomsk and the Caucasus. It rapidly spread west and hit North America in December 1889, South America in February-April 1890, India in February-March 1890, and Australia in March-April 1890. It was purportedly caused by the H2N8 type of flu virus and had a very high attack and mortality rate.
o The "Spanish flu", 1918-1919. First identified early March 1918 in US troops training at Camp Funstan, Kansas, by October 1918 it had spread to become a world-wide pandemic on all continents. Unusually deadly and virulent, it ended nearly as quickly as it began, vanishing completely within 18 months. In six months, 25 million were dead; some estimates put the total of those killed worldwide at over twice that number. An estimated 17 million died in India, 500,000 in the United States and 200,000 in the UK. The virus was recently reconstructed by scientists at the CDC studying remains preserved by the Alaskan permafrost. They identified it as a type of H1N1 virus.
o The "Asian Flu", 1957-58. An H2N2 caused about 70,000 deaths in the United States. First identified in China in late February 1957, the Asian flu spread to the United States by June 1957.
o The "Hong Kong Flu", 1968-69. An H3N2 caused about 34,000 deaths in the United States. This virus was first detected in Hong Kong in early 1968 and spread to the United States later that year. Influenza A (H3N2) viruses still circulate today"
None of your other examples prove anything about flu. All it proves it that you never bothered to look up just how dangerous flu pandemics are.
"While they're all threats, they aren't just going to all of a sudden just break out all over the place."
Um, yes actually, that's exactly what will happen with the flu.
"When it explodes, THEN freak out about it, but until then enjoy life."
Yeah, great, why would we be developing effective treatments, exapnding our knowledge of virus pathology, and improving our procedures, when we could be drinking margaritas and listening to reggae.
Newsflash, you lay the groundwork for dealing with outbreaks before they happen. Your stupid plan results in more deaths.
"Listen, everyone complains when the Slashvertisements come down from above and aren't denoted as such."
I don't.
"The thinly veiled ads that are presented as stories are insulting to readers and undermine the credibility of Slashdot."
Credibility of Slashdot... What an interesting theoretical concept.
You don't think it undermines the credibility of Slashdot to have half-wit trolls sounding off about their opinion as though it were representative of the community, like you did there?
"In the same way, a comment that contains an advertisement undermines the validity of the comment and have no place here."
How so? If the comment is valid, it's valid. It would be exactly the same comment regardless of referrals. Look up ad hominem, and you'll realize why you should have kept that particual opinion to yourself.
"So call me a troll if you want"
No need, you wear it on your sleeve.
"I've made my point"
Well the only point you've made is that you post useless shit.
Do yourself a favor, stop acting like your opinion is representative of anyone but you.
"I don't know what you mean by "hard" evidence but we know for sure people have been waterboarded there and that's classified as torture."
I looked a lot, and the only source I could find that agrees with this statement is Human Rights Watch.
So, what is your source for the assertion that it is torture? Why are you making it appear as though there is any kind of consensus on the subject? I guarante I can find more sources that disagree with you than agree.
But even that wasn't my point. Why is it that people like you, instead of presenting eveidence, give arrogant self assured procalamations as though you know what the facts are, especially in cases like this where the facts are highly in dispute?
I get so tired of reading declaration after declaration that insists they have THE correct opinion on the subject, when in reality it's just another guy shooting his mouth of about what he thinks.
In the first link, I want you to pay special attention to a key sentence, one I am assuming you were unfamiliar with.
"Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present"
Read that over, and you'll realize that in this case, the Constitutional argument may not fly. That sentence is about Article VI
"Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
And it's been upheld.
The only legal argument that has ever gotten anywhere is one that says the Constitution and treaties are of equal validity. The best you can hope for is a tie in their importance, but there's simply no way to avoid the fact that treaties have tremendous power.
This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and everything to do with treaty making power, that is enumerated as being above the Constitution.
I asked you to provide a quote. Until you do so, you're a proven liar.
So why would I waste more time refuting a liar?
"If you were not refuting me, why did you say "Ok, firts, that wrong"?"
Because it is wrong. But I didn't refute it. Saying you're wrong is not the same as a refutation, I think that's your problem.
You're so used to telling people they're wrong, and thinking you've refuted them in doing so, that you assign that ridiculous criteria to others.
"And fur-wise, they only get involved with baby seals, not furs in general."
That's the part I was agreeing with. You see how I mention baby seal, and you also mention baby seals? See how the discuss the same subject? Yeah, that's agreeing.
"If you think that your sentences conveyed you agreeing with me"
They did. I apologize for using concepts that exceed your intellectual capacity.
"then uou're not only a terrible debater,"
Yeah, you mentioned this already. That's when I demonstrated that
a) you were lying b) you continually employ logical fallacies
So, you can call me a terrible debater all you want, it doesn't change either of those facts. Nor does it change the fact that I, as a supposedly "terrible debater" have repeatedly wiped my ass with you and your points.
So, either post the quote that supports you, or admit you're lying.
"You'd have a hard time making an argument that health care in the USA is better than Cuba, if you used normal markers of health, like life expectancy, infant mortality, sick days, etc."
And I didn't have a hard time at all. It was amazingly easy, took thirty seconds.
Why didn't you do it before you made such a ridiculous assertion that is factually incorrect?
"There is no reason we should not also have the best health care, but we do not, by a long shot."
What a ridiculous, simplistic assessment of reality. We do have the best doctors, and the best care, it's just not available to everyone. Do you understand that, do you undertsand why your point is specious and puerile, or do I need to clarify why everyone in Italy doesn't have a Ferrari?
"You'd have a hard time making an argument that health care in the USA is better than Cuba, if you used normal markers of health, like life expectancy, infant mortality, sick days, etc."
Yeah, it's stunningly difficult to look at numbers and tell which is larger. Apparently that's why you didn't bother before posting.
Cuba's life expectancy- Lower than the US Cuba's unfant mortality- higher than the US Sick days simply do not enter the argument, unless you can accurately track who is really sick and who is playing hooky.
So, tell us please, why it's so hard to look at facts and read them? Tell us how you arrived at conclusions that are demonstrably wrong?
"If she gets cancer again she is on her own. This is wrong!"
Why? Why is it wrong that a person dies from a disease?
What's wrong is people like yourself who continually insist that others bear the burden for her. People get sick. They die. There is not an inherent right to have your illnesses cured because they are heartbreaking.
So justify it. And do so without emotionally charged arguments, because we all know it is a terrible thing when a loved one gets cancer. That fact has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing me to pay for her care.
"As to your straw man stuff, you said they can't be environmentalists, because they burn diesel fuel in their ship. You said that, not me"
Then QUOTE IT. Cut and paste the quotation where I said that. I'll wait. What you did THERE is ALSO a straw man, and apparently, you're not too fond of reading links or you'd realize why.
But you won't. Because, despit the fact that you THINK otherwise, I never said it.
You're lying.
"Greenpeace is really only involved in the baby seal hunting, not the people wearing fur end"
Ah, yet another thing I bet you wish you could untype. I wasn't refuting anyhting here, genius. I was giving the background to my statement and...GASP...agreeing wiht you.
I have to assume that you've never said anything that anyone else thought was worth agreeing with, which is why you don't recognize it when it happens. Oh well.
"You backed up my argument, not refuted it."
And since I wasn't trying to refute it, I don't know what your point is.
"You are a terrible debater."
Well, try to avoid logical fallacies (but they're insidious and subtle, so I fail sometimes) andf I don't lie like you do.
So I guess by that metric, in your eyes, I'm a terrible debater.
"You misrepresent your own positions"
No, YOU misunderstood. I asked you to supply the exact quote where I claimed what you think I claimed, and I guarantee you won't find one. Your inability to read for comprehension has no bearing on the validity of my statements.
"And you do realize you can't edit posts on slashdot, right?"
Of course. That's pretty ironic though, coming from you. Especially when you realize that this statement
"You said that, not me."
is demonstrably false. Why lie when you know it can be checked?
You should have done that before you posted. Oh well, you can't edit posts on slashdot.
You're a fucking idiot who has to rely on intentional distortion and obfuscation?
"this can be interpreted in multiple ways."
3) He got what he wanted, but was changing his request in order to avoid admitting it.
So, you're wrong there.
"Such a claim doesn't make much sense except in the context of situation (1)"
That's wrong too. It makes perfect sense in the context of number 3 above. You just decided to assume things that weren't stated. That, of course, is because you made ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality, so you had to manufacture something.
"you're referring to his claim that Greenpeace's actions aren't terrorism. I.e., you're saying that the actions are terrorism."
No, I'm saying his definition of terrorism is wrong. Is that clear enough for you, being an AC?
So, you're wrong here too.
So, you were wrong three times.
In the future, instead of making idiotic assumptions (and some of them were just plain moronic) you could ask.
Thanks for the action though, I love slapping AC's around.
Slashdot Mirror
"Who says we're the best?"
All the people who aren't Americans, but want to be.
Too bad, you had a decent rant going until I squashed it like that.
"Influenza
o The "Asiatic Flu", 1889-1890. Was first reported in May of 1889 in Bukhara, Russia. By October, it had reached Tomsk and the Caucasus. It rapidly spread west and hit North America in December 1889, South America in February-April 1890, India in February-March 1890, and Australia in March-April 1890. It was purportedly caused by the H2N8 type of flu virus and had a very high attack and mortality rate.
o The "Spanish flu", 1918-1919. First identified early March 1918 in US troops training at Camp Funstan, Kansas, by October 1918 it had spread to become a world-wide pandemic on all continents. Unusually deadly and virulent, it ended nearly as quickly as it began, vanishing completely within 18 months. In six months, 25 million were dead; some estimates put the total of those killed worldwide at over twice that number. An estimated 17 million died in India, 500,000 in the United States and 200,000 in the UK. The virus was recently reconstructed by scientists at the CDC studying remains preserved by the Alaskan permafrost. They identified it as a type of H1N1 virus.
o The "Asian Flu", 1957-58. An H2N2 caused about 70,000 deaths in the United States. First identified in China in late February 1957, the Asian flu spread to the United States by June 1957.
o The "Hong Kong Flu", 1968-69. An H3N2 caused about 34,000 deaths in the United States. This virus was first detected in Hong Kong in early 1968 and spread to the United States later that year. Influenza A (H3N2) viruses still circulate today"
None of your other examples prove anything about flu. All it proves it that you never bothered to look up just how dangerous flu pandemics are.
"While they're all threats, they aren't just going to all of a sudden just break out all over the place."
Um, yes actually, that's exactly what will happen with the flu.
"When it explodes, THEN freak out about it, but until then enjoy life."
Yeah, great, why would we be developing effective treatments, exapnding our knowledge of virus pathology, and improving our procedures, when we could be drinking margaritas and listening to reggae.
Newsflash, you lay the groundwork for dealing with outbreaks before they happen. Your stupid plan results in more deaths.
"Listen, everyone complains when the Slashvertisements come down from above and aren't denoted as such."
I don't.
"The thinly veiled ads that are presented as stories are insulting to readers and undermine the credibility of Slashdot."
Credibility of Slashdot... What an interesting theoretical concept.
You don't think it undermines the credibility of Slashdot to have half-wit trolls sounding off about their opinion as though it were representative of the community, like you did there?
"In the same way, a comment that contains an advertisement undermines the validity of the comment and have no place here."
How so? If the comment is valid, it's valid. It would be exactly the same comment regardless of referrals. Look up ad hominem, and you'll realize why you should have kept that particual opinion to yourself.
"So call me a troll if you want"
No need, you wear it on your sleeve.
"I've made my point"
Well the only point you've made is that you post useless shit.
Do yourself a favor, stop acting like your opinion is representative of anyone but you.
"Worst post ever"
"Either way it's somewhat of an old storyline that while a good one, seems to be a publicity stunt."
How DARE they? The unmitigated gall of actually trying to get publicity, those evil fuckers.
"Leave it to Marvel to sellout for the all mighty $"
Yes, god forbid a company in the business of telling stories actually focus on telling a story people will buy. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THEM!!!
Needless to say, it was very convenient timing.
"I don't know what you mean by "hard" evidence but we know for sure people have been waterboarded there and that's classified as torture."
I looked a lot, and the only source I could find that agrees with this statement is Human Rights Watch.
So, what is your source for the assertion that it is torture? Why are you making it appear as though there is any kind of consensus on the subject? I guarante I can find more sources that disagree with you than agree.
But even that wasn't my point. Why is it that people like you, instead of presenting eveidence, give arrogant self assured procalamations as though you know what the facts are, especially in cases like this where the facts are highly in dispute?
I get so tired of reading declaration after declaration that insists they have THE correct opinion on the subject, when in reality it's just another guy shooting his mouth of about what he thinks.
Kingdom Come is a better example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Come_(comic)
Overreaction to societal problems, tyranny in the guise of security, they even have a gulag.
Now that you've uselessly paraphrased that tired cliche, explain why.
"It is a big deal."
Why?
GP aksed why you care about tapping VoIP when tapping phones is currently trivial.
You responded by spouting nonsense. Answer the question please.
"anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
But the Constitution itself disagrees.
So, while I appreciate that you're an attorney, I'll go with the information I have and disregard your opinion.
Regarding the rant, a couple of things come to mind.
First, treaty making powers of the government trump the Constitution. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland
In the first link, I want you to pay special attention to a key sentence, one I am assuming you were unfamiliar with.
"Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present"
Read that over, and you'll realize that in this case, the Constitutional argument may not fly. That sentence is about Article VI
"Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
And it's been upheld.
The only legal argument that has ever gotten anywhere is one that says the Constitution and treaties are of equal validity. The best you can hope for is a tie in their importance, but there's simply no way to avoid the fact that treaties have tremendous power.
This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and everything to do with treaty making power, that is enumerated as being above the Constitution.
It's not illegal. It's not unconstitutional.
But it does suck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_cr owded_theatre
Explains everything, just as you said.
I asked you to provide a quote. Until you do so, you're a proven liar.
So why would I waste more time refuting a liar?
"If you were not refuting me, why did you say "Ok, firts, that wrong"?"
Because it is wrong. But I didn't refute it. Saying you're wrong is not the same as a refutation, I think that's your problem.
You're so used to telling people they're wrong, and thinking you've refuted them in doing so, that you assign that ridiculous criteria to others.
"And fur-wise, they only get involved with baby seals, not furs in general."
That's the part I was agreeing with. You see how I mention baby seal, and you also mention baby seals? See how the discuss the same subject? Yeah, that's agreeing.
"If you think that your sentences conveyed you agreeing with me"
They did. I apologize for using concepts that exceed your intellectual capacity.
"then uou're not only a terrible debater,"
Yeah, you mentioned this already. That's when I demonstrated that
a) you were lying
b) you continually employ logical fallacies
So, you can call me a terrible debater all you want, it doesn't change either of those facts. Nor does it change the fact that I, as a supposedly "terrible debater" have repeatedly wiped my ass with you and your points.
So, either post the quote that supports you, or admit you're lying.
Ok, I guess you just don't understand the language very well.
"Well, I live in a country where healthcare is free {for people} and nobody here has a problem with that. Yes, it's all paid for out of taxes"
Explain how something that is "free" is paid for by any means. If it is free, there is no reason to pay for it.
So those two statements in your post are mutually exclusive. It cannot be free and paid for by your taxes simultaneously.
"But if you want things like free healthcare, free education, paved roads and so forth, you have to pay taxes."
Then they aren't free. This was my original point, and apparently you missed it.
You continue to talk about supposedly "free" services, blissfully ignoring the fact that you already paid for them.
They were not free. They are not free. Repeat that to yourself until you understand that you are paying for them.
Then explain why that disconnect is so severe that you continue to refer to them as "free" despite the fact that you have paid for them.
"How come they can't provide universal free healthcare, and universal free veterinary care for cats and dogs? "
How come people like you always talk about "free" healthcare, when it's my taxes that will pay for it?
It's not "free" in any sense of the word.
I wonder if blindly swallowing that lie is the reason people like you are so gung ho about socialized medicine.
But you still didn't answer my question.
Your claim was
"You'd have a hard time making an argument that health care in the USA is better than Cuba, if you used normal markers of health, like life expectancy, infant mortality, sick days, etc."
And I didn't have a hard time at all. It was amazingly easy, took thirty seconds.
Why didn't you do it before you made such a ridiculous assertion that is factually incorrect?
"There is no reason we should not also have the best health care, but we do not, by a long shot."
What a ridiculous, simplistic assessment of reality. We do have the best doctors, and the best care, it's just not available to everyone. Do you understand that, do you undertsand why your point is specious and puerile, or do I need to clarify why everyone in Italy doesn't have a Ferrari?
Check the facts
& pagesize=20&sort=Country
http://www.os-connect.com/pop/p4.asp?whichpage=11
"You'd have a hard time making an argument that health care in the USA is better than Cuba, if you used normal markers of health, like life expectancy, infant mortality, sick days, etc."
Yeah, it's stunningly difficult to look at numbers and tell which is larger. Apparently that's why you didn't bother before posting.
Cuba's life expectancy- Lower than the US
Cuba's unfant mortality- higher than the US
Sick days simply do not enter the argument, unless you can accurately track who is really sick and who is playing hooky.
So, tell us please, why it's so hard to look at facts and read them? Tell us how you arrived at conclusions that are demonstrably wrong?
"If she gets cancer again she is on her own. This is wrong!"
Why? Why is it wrong that a person dies from a disease?
What's wrong is people like yourself who continually insist that others bear the burden for her. People get sick. They die. There is not an inherent right to have your illnesses cured because they are heartbreaking.
So justify it. And do so without emotionally charged arguments, because we all know it is a terrible thing when a loved one gets cancer. That fact has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing me to pay for her care.
"As to your straw man stuff, you said they can't be environmentalists, because they burn diesel fuel in their ship. You said that, not me"
Then QUOTE IT. Cut and paste the quotation where I said that. I'll wait. What you did THERE is ALSO a straw man, and apparently, you're not too fond of reading links or you'd realize why.
But you won't. Because, despit the fact that you THINK otherwise, I never said it.
You're lying.
"Greenpeace is really only involved in the baby seal hunting, not the people wearing fur end"
Ah, yet another thing I bet you wish you could untype. I wasn't refuting anyhting here, genius. I was giving the background to my statement and...GASP...agreeing wiht you.
I have to assume that you've never said anything that anyone else thought was worth agreeing with, which is why you don't recognize it when it happens. Oh well.
"You backed up my argument, not refuted it."
And since I wasn't trying to refute it, I don't know what your point is.
"You are a terrible debater."
Well, try to avoid logical fallacies (but they're insidious and subtle, so I fail sometimes) andf I don't lie like you do.
So I guess by that metric, in your eyes, I'm a terrible debater.
"You misrepresent your own positions"
No, YOU misunderstood. I asked you to supply the exact quote where I claimed what you think I claimed, and I guarantee you won't find one. Your inability to read for comprehension has no bearing on the validity of my statements.
"And you do realize you can't edit posts on slashdot, right?"
Of course. That's pretty ironic though, coming from you. Especially when you realize that this statement
"You said that, not me."
is demonstrably false. Why lie when you know it can be checked?
You should have done that before you posted. Oh well, you can't edit posts on slashdot.
You're a fucking idiot who has to rely on intentional distortion and obfuscation?
"this can be interpreted in multiple ways."
3) He got what he wanted, but was changing his request in order to avoid admitting it.
So, you're wrong there.
"Such a claim doesn't make much sense except in the context of situation (1)"
That's wrong too. It makes perfect sense in the context of number 3 above. You just decided to assume things that weren't stated. That, of course, is because you made ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality, so you had to manufacture something.
"you're referring to his claim that Greenpeace's actions aren't terrorism. I.e., you're saying that the actions are terrorism."
No, I'm saying his definition of terrorism is wrong. Is that clear enough for you, being an AC?
So, you're wrong here too.
So, you were wrong three times.
In the future, instead of making idiotic assumptions (and some of them were just plain moronic) you could ask.
Thanks for the action though, I love slapping AC's around.