 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
> responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
world, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
news:4845a7d2$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
> > responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
> You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
> world, though.
Ideally, and I am sure the goal of the authorities was not to piss off other
nations, but often it's not possible to not compromise. On the face of it,
electronic registration, if it can save any checkpoint congestions, even
sounds reasonable. FWIW, I was throroughly pissed last time I flew through
Heathrow too, but I doubt that the intent of the British was to piss off
flyers. Air and cross border travel has become a PITA in general.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Air and cross border travel has become a PITA in general.
>
You can take some comfort in the idea that within a few years kerosen
will be so costly that all the problems of air travel will disappear :-p
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
> You can take some comfort in the idea that within a few years kerosen
> will be so costly that all the problems of air travel will disappear :-p
In a way it might be a blessing that the ending of fossil fuels and
global warming problems are coincidentally happening at the same time,
as the former will help alleviate the latter.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> You know I'm going to be question any article that begins with:
>
>> "Europeans and other potential enemies of the US..."
>
> That expression just sounded like sarcasm to me. I would be surprised
> if the author wrote it seriously.
I agree - which is why I don't expect it to objective. Since I don't
know him, I'll assume the author is trying to make a case, and is
willing to use any tactic that he can to get the message across -
including ignoring data points to the contrary (i.e. selective data).
If he had provided links to more background information (that was a bit
more on the descriptive rather than opinionated side), then I may be
interested.
If I already knew something about the subject of the article, then I
may actually read it - but I don't, and I don't want to find out through
him.
A very casual glance at the article suggests the article is of use only
to those who already know what he's talking about and agree with him.
Why bother?
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think it's rather telling that the people who performed the London
> bombings were not foreign terrorists who had entered the country
> illegally. They were British citizens. I believe that has had at least
> some effect on the foreign policies of the US with respect to Europe.
> (That is, it's no longer just "ah, an European citizen, thus not a
> terrorist, welcome" as it may have been in the past, because nowadays
> even European citizens can be muslim radical terrorists thanks to these
> immigration policies.)
What I don't understand is why not just simply have a visa requirement
regardless of where you're from? As you yourself pointed out,
nationality is not a good indication of anything from a security
standpoint.
--
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:58:00 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4845a7d2$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
>> > responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
>
>> You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
>> world, though.
>
> Ideally, and I am sure the goal of the authorities was not to piss off
> other nations, but often it's not possible to not compromise.
It's nearly always possible to compromise. What it takes is a reasonable
point of view to start from. The attitude "we're the USA and we can do
anything we damned well please" is what leads to this type of behaviour.
> On the
> face of it, electronic registration, if it can save any checkpoint
> congestions, even sounds reasonable.
On the face of it, yes. But then you get into privacy issues and who has
access to the information. With our government's demonstrated inability
to keep secure data secure, I don't trust them with my SSN, and *they
issued it to me*.
> FWIW, I was throroughly pissed last
> time I flew through Heathrow too, but I doubt that the intent of the
> British was to piss off flyers. Air and cross border travel has become a
> PITA in general.
Yes, but in some places it's more of a PITA than others. Not just in
Terminal 5. But hey, at least you weren't wearing a Transformers shirt
where the robot was holding a gun. Someone was detained in Terminal 5 at
Heathrow for that (though I wonder if there's more to that story than
we're hearing).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yes, but in some places it's more of a PITA than others. Not just in
> Terminal 5. But hey, at least you weren't wearing a Transformers shirt
> where the robot was holding a gun. Someone was detained in Terminal 5 at
> Heathrow for that (though I wonder if there's more to that story than
> we're hearing).
In the article I read, they either declined to comment or did not give
a better explanation.
To an extent, I think the claims about that incident were a bit off.
The BBC article title implied he was not allowed on due to a security
concern. However, the end of the article suggested that it was not to
offend other passengers (put in the same category as having a shirt with
expletives).
--
How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise MY hand!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:26:00 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> In the article I read, they either declined to comment or did not
give
> a better explanation.
>
> To an extent, I think the claims about that incident were a bit
off.
> The BBC article title implied he was not allowed on due to a security
> concern. However, the end of the article suggested that it was not to
> offend other passengers (put in the same category as having a shirt with
> expletives).
We must've read the same article - bbc.co.uk? I do think that there's
more to the story than was there. The scary thing is that even as
written, it's believable.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <48456963$1@news.povray.org>, doc### [at] gmailcom says...
> Invisible wrote:
> > You know your PC is too slow when...
> >
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/comments/
> >
> > ....clicking on a link causes Firefox to lock up. :-/
> >
> What're you running Firefox on? (Hardware info pls)
>
> John
Could just be the page. Some stuff that is very IE friendly makes
Firefox barf. GMail, for example, at least on my system, will hang
Firefox (2.0, not sure about the 3.0beta) when attempting to check
"any" mail folder other than the inbox, and that will too, if you manage
to get to some other folder, then return to it. Its also slower than
Hotmail was while using Dialup. No idea why, and it bugs the hell out of
me. It works blindingly fast and error free under IE though, again, no
fracking clue why...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You know your PC is too slow when...
>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/us_visa_scheme/comments/
>> ....clicking on a link causes Firefox to lock up. :-/
>>
> What're you running Firefox on? (Hardware info pls)
AMD Athlon XP 1700+, 256 MB RAM, Windoze XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.0.9.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> However, the end of the article suggested that it was not to
> offend other passengers (put in the same category as having a shirt with
> expletives).
In a country where something like 80% of the population has a protected
minority group status it's probably *impossible* to not to offend anyone,
no matter what you do. You would probably have to live excluded from
society if you want to avoid offending anyone (and even that probably
would offend someone if he finds out).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:484649d4@news.povray.org...
> 256 MB RAM
You're kidding, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> AMD Athlon XP 1700+, 256 MB RAM, Windoze XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.0.9.
Terrific state-of-art specs for a gamer and computer programmer?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Doctor John" <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:48459a58$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>Gail Shaw wrote:
>>
>>>Never? Have you ever had the pleasure of a chat with the Border
>
> Protection
>
>>>people at a US airport?
>>
>>Yup. Several times and don't ask ...
>
>
> Twice for me. I found the guys in Seattle OK, and even willing to joke a
> bit. The 'person' in Denver on the other hand...
> Let's just say I don't like interregations at (for me) 2am after I've been
> travelling for 28 hours
>
>
>>You'll have to offer me serious money to get me to visit again
>
>
> There's a conference I would like to attend in Seattle in November. At least
> it's before the registration becomes compulsary.
>
> Hmmm. Anyone know what the Canadian border's like on that side of the
> continent?
>
>
Recently when RETURNING to Canada, (that would be the country of my
citizenship,) from the US, I had to endure a close screening by a crew
of smarmy homeland security agents. My mistake was that I was riding on
a bus rather than in a car. Now, while I consider it invasive, I can
understand that these freaks feel the need to monitor who is crossing
the border in either direction. But the complexion of the 'interview'
was that I somehow had to meet the approval of these American agents,
before I would be allowed to return to my own country.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> Recently when RETURNING to Canada, (that would be the country of my
> citizenship,) from the US, I had to endure a close screening by a crew
> of smarmy homeland security agents. My mistake was that I was riding on
> a bus rather than in a car. Now, while I consider it invasive, I can
> understand that these freaks feel the need to monitor who is crossing
> the border in either direction. But the complexion of the 'interview'
> was that I somehow had to meet the approval of these American agents,
> before I would be allowed to return to my own country.
Well, it makes sense. We can never know what those Canadians are up to.
Ever seen the South Park movie?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> ...That this is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
>
> Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
> responsibility of a government is to protect its own people. The
> intricacies of foreign relationships is always second to that (at
> least when it doesn't directly affect the first responsibility).
>
> Europe has dug somewhat of a hole for itself with its generally
> lenient immigration policy, and some people, such as the US, are
> wary of that.
>
> I think it's rather telling that the people who performed the London
> bombings were not foreign terrorists who had entered the country
> illegally. They were British citizens. I believe that has had at least
> some effect on the foreign policies of the US with respect to Europe.
> (That is, it's no longer just "ah, an European citizen, thus not a
> terrorist, welcome" as it may have been in the past, because nowadays
> even European citizens can be muslim radical terrorists thanks to these
> immigration policies.)
It's not as if the recent spate of terrorism was the first time that a
European citizen harbored wishes of blowing up Americans. During the
80's the Soviet Union sponsored quite a few terrorist groups in Europe,
and it was European citizens who took the cash and blew up Americans
where they could.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp a écrit :
> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>> You can take some comfort in the idea that within a few years kerosen
>> will be so costly that all the problems of air travel will disappear :-p
>
> In a way it might be a blessing that the ending of fossil fuels and
> global warming problems are coincidentally happening at the same time,
> as the former will help alleviate the latter.
>
Sadly even if fossil fuels were abruptly out of use, the effects on
climate could last for some time. There will probably be a length of
time where we'll have the inconvenience from climate change while not
having the benefits of fossil fuels any longer...
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
>> responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
>
> You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
> world, though.
And you don't protect them by letting your policies be limited by the
opinions foreigners have about those policies.
Let's be frank. Every nation on the planet that is run by anyone with
any brains at all makes protection of its own interests the first
priority of its foreign policy. The French government does what it
thinks is best for France, and if the Americans don't like it, the
French really don't care. Same goes for the Spaniards with regard to
Spain, the British with regard to the UK, the Germans with regard to
Germany, the Russians with regard to Russia, and so on.
The only real difference is that much of the world has this notion that
the US, and another nation I will not name here, are somehow not
entitled to place their own interests first, but must, for reasons that
never bear close scrutiny, place other nations first.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:24:43 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>
>You'll have to offer me serious money to get me to visit again
Me too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
4845fdf0$1@news.povray.org...
> We must've read the same article - bbc.co.uk? I do think that there's
> more to the story than was there. The scary thing is that even as
> written, it's believable.
Here's the pic of the guy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023560/Man-threatened-arrest-Heathrow-wearing-Transformers-T-shirt.html
Note that he has a sri lankan name. Since Sri Lanka is home to one of the
most ferocious terrorist organisations (they had cornered the whole "suicide
bombing" market until Al Qaeda came along, and they have tried to claim the
title back since) I wouldn't be surprised that people with this background
are special targets for the authorities. Perhaps this works like some spam
filters.
X-Terror-Report:
* 0.4 M_30 Young male below thirty
* 2.5 DK_SKIN Person with dark skin
* 4.5 FROM_TRR_CTRY From: country with lots of terrorists
* 4.3 CLTH_OFFENS Clothes: wearing potentially offensive message
* 8.1 BNN_IMG Image: contains banned images including guns, bombs
and nail clippers
X-Terror-Status: Yes, score=19.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,M_30 ,DK_SKIN,
FROM_TRR_CTRY ,CLTH_OFFENS,BNN_IMG
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> AMD Athlon XP 1700+, 256 MB RAM, Windoze XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.0.9.
>
Gordon Bennett! My spare laptop's more powerful than that
:-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> AMD Athlon XP 1700+, 256 MB RAM, Windoze XP SP2, Firefox 2.0.0.9.
>
> Terrific state-of-art specs for a gamer and computer programmer?-)
This is the PC I have *at work*. :-P
The PC I have *at home* is an AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ with 3 GB RAM and an
nVidia GeForce 7900GT. And it works very nicely too. :-D
[It *was* a pretty good system back when I bought it. Obviously several
years on it's been superceeded by better things...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> You're kidding, right?
Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who
swaps the backup tapes?
Put simply: I am not considered important.
I should perhaps point out that I only got *this* PC because somebody
else got a better one, so I had their old one. My previous machine was
an AMD Duron 800 MHz with 128 MB RAM. (Running Windows NT, obviously.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who
> swaps the backup tapes?
And who browses the internet at work hours? ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who
>> swaps the backup tapes?
>
> And who browses the internet at work hours? ;)
Hey, I gotta check the Internet link is still working. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:36:47 +0200, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4845fdf0$1@news.povray.org...
>> We must've read the same article - bbc.co.uk? I do think that there's
>> more to the story than was there. The scary thing is that even as
>> written, it's believable.
>
> Here's the pic of the guy.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023560/Man-threatened-arrest-
Heathrow-wearing-Transformers-T-shirt.html
Yeah, didn't look too threatening to me. :-)
> Note that he has a sri lankan name. Since Sri Lanka is home to one of
> the most ferocious terrorist organisations (they had cornered the whole
> "suicide bombing" market until Al Qaeda came along, and they have tried
> to claim the title back since) I wouldn't be surprised that people with
> this background are special targets for the authorities. Perhaps this
> works like some spam filters.
Ah, racial/ethnic profiling at its best. That explains a lot. :-)
> X-Terror-Report:
> * 0.4 M_30 Young male below thirty
> * 2.5 DK_SKIN Person with dark skin
> * 4.5 FROM_TRR_CTRY From: country with lots of terrorists *
> 4.3 CLTH_OFFENS Clothes: wearing potentially offensive message *
> 8.1 BNN_IMG Image: contains banned images including guns, bombs
> and nail clippers
>
> X-Terror-Status: Yes, score=19.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_99,M_30
> ,DK_SKIN, FROM_TRR_CTRY ,CLTH_OFFENS,BNN_IMG
You forgot on the BNN_IMG portion of the report that that list also
includes knitting needles. It probably *should* include "big
hands" (since you could cause some serious harm with big hands), but the
real filter doesn't.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:31:18 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:52:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Call me nationalistic or whatever you want, but IMO the main
>>> responsibility of a government is to protect its own people.
>>
>> You don't protect the people of a nation by pissing off the rest of the
>> world, though.
>
> And you don't protect them by letting your policies be limited by the
> opinions foreigners have about those policies.
Sure, but it's not about the opinions. It's about treating people with
respect. And BTW, it's not just foreigners who have these opinions about
the policies. I live in the US, and I think it's total bullshit.
Why? Because the terrorists know what our measures are. They know
they're going to need a better fake ID to get into the country. They
know that instead of recruiting middle-eastern looking people, they need
to recruit people who look like me (average middle aged white guy).
All measures like this do is keep the stupid terrorists out. But stupid
terrorists do things like set the time on their bomb vest wrong and blow
themselves up before they leave the workshop.
It does us absolutely no good to put measures in place that depend on the
people we're trying to prevent entering the country being total idiots.
> Let's be frank. Every nation on the planet that is run by anyone with
> any brains at all makes protection of its own interests the first
> priority of its foreign policy. The French government does what it
> thinks is best for France, and if the Americans don't like it, the
> French really don't care. Same goes for the Spaniards with regard to
> Spain, the British with regard to the UK, the Germans with regard to
> Germany, the Russians with regard to Russia, and so on.
Yes, but the thing that most governments miss is that protection of one's
own interests DOES include not pissing off other countries. "Why do they
hate us?" Because we're IN the middle east. So what's our solution?
SEND MORE TROOPS. Duh, what kind of stupid foreign policy decision is
that?
> The only real difference is that much of the world has this notion that
> the US, and another nation I will not name here, are somehow not
> entitled to place their own interests first, but must, for reasons that
> never bear close scrutiny, place other nations first.
As I said, there's a difference between placing your interests first
without regard to the effect it has on other parts of the world, putting
your interests first but protecting relations with your allies, and
putting measures in place that actually work and don't *depend* on "the
enemy" being as stupid as a potted plant.
"Oh, if I want to fly in from Europe without a visa, I need to register
on a website. I guess I'll get a visa from a non-European country, fly
in to Mexico or Canada, and find a place to cross the border. Or maybe
I'll go to Haiti and hop a boat there with a bunch of immigrants - I may
not make it, but there will be plenty after me and one boat is bound to
get through."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> "Why do they hate us?" Because we're IN the middle east.
As if it was that simple.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:04:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> "Why do they hate us?" Because we're IN the middle east.
>
> As if it was that simple.
Sure there are other factors, but the major beef that Bin Laden and
others has is that unbelievers are in their holy land. Our solution to
that was to put MORE unbelievers in their land.
So, someone comes to your house uninvited, and you ask them to leave.
Instead, they invite 20 friends. Tell me you're not gonna get pissed off
about that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> So, someone comes to your house uninvited, and you ask them to leave.
> Instead, they invite 20 friends. Tell me you're not gonna get pissed off
> about that.
How about: You threaten to kill them and their families, and they call
the police.
It's not always that simple.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:19:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> So, someone comes to your house uninvited, and you ask them to leave.
>> Instead, they invite 20 friends. Tell me you're not gonna get pissed
>> off about that.
>
> How about: You threaten to kill them and their families, and they call
> the police.
So the US is the world police?
> It's not always that simple.
It's only as complicated as we make it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Why would the people I work for bother spending money on the guy who
>>> swaps the backup tapes?
>>
>> And who browses the internet at work hours? ;)
>
> Hey, I gotta check the Internet link is still working. ;-)
I found this hilarious:
http://readatwork.com/
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure there are other factors, but the major beef that Bin Laden and
> others has is that unbelievers are in their holy land. Our solution to
> that was to put MORE unbelievers in their land.
Yeah. And the obviously correct way to get our military *out* of their
land was to start attacking our *own* country. Good move, that. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:57:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure there are other factors, but the major beef that Bin Laden and
>> others has is that unbelievers are in their holy land. Our solution to
>> that was to put MORE unbelievers in their land.
>
> Yeah. And the obviously correct way to get our military *out* of their
> land was to start attacking our *own* country. Good move, that. ;-)
Well, it wasn't Iraq who attacked us on 9/11, was it?
I don't seem to recall that 9/11 was the first attempt to get us out of
their land. Some people take the approach "I'll *show* you what it's
like" after other means fail.
I absolutely don't agree with their tactics, but I can understand why
they do what they do. This isn't something that happened overnight; even
when Bin Laden was on "our side" fighting in Afghanistan, he was angry
about the "US occupation" (ie, established military bases) in Saudi
Arabia.
If you were a believer in God (and I know you're not from earlier
discussions), if someone came in and pissed all over your church and
disrespected your religion, you'd probably be upset about it as well. If
after asking a hundred times that they leave they didn't, you might feel
it was time to take more extreme action to get your point across.
Most people have a very hard time stepping into someone else's shoes in
order to look at a situation and understand it from a different point of
view. I can't count the number of conversations I've had with people
over the years to try to get them to see something they disagree with
from my (contrary) point of view:
"Imagine that you didn't believe in Christ"
"But I do!"
"Yeah, but imagine if you didn't!"
"Why on earth would I do that?"
"To see a different point of view"
"But that point of view is WRONG"
"And you know that how?"
"Because it's not MY point of view"
etc.
As a nation, the US is extremely guilty of failing to look at situations
from other points of view, even to understand them. Understanding
doesn't mean agreement. I think many people, though, are afraid of
understanding a different perspective - maybe they fear agreeing with it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I found this hilarious:
>
> http://readatwork.com/
...and people say *I* have too much free time! ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, it wasn't Iraq who attacked us on 9/11, was it?
No.
> I don't seem to recall that 9/11 was the first attempt to get us out of
> their land.
Me neither.
Note that wasn't much of a value judgement. I'm not (at this moment)
saying the US was right or wrong. I'm just saying that, historically
speaking, the best way to reduce the US's military presence in your
country has not been to start a war with the US. Gee, Bullwinkle, that
trick *never* works.
I'll grant you if you've run out of options and you think God is on your
side, it might seem more reasonable.
> "Imagine that you didn't believe in Christ"
> "But I do!"
> "Yeah, but imagine if you didn't!"
> "Why on earth would I do that?"
> "To see a different point of view"
> "But that point of view is WRONG"
> "And you know that how?"
> "Because it's not MY point of view"
> etc.
Heh. BTDTGTTS.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:14:08 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, it wasn't Iraq who attacked us on 9/11, was it?
>
> No.
But taking troops into Iraq was seen as an invasion of holy lands. So we
repeat the cycle - they want us out, we become more entrenched in the
region. I don't see how that's supposed to break the cycle. You can't
*kill* an idea, but "we" (the US, or at least the administration) seems
to think we can bomb the terrorists into submission. That's a flawed
premise.
I really want to get a copy of McClellan's book, it looks like a
fascinating read.
>> I don't seem to recall that 9/11 was the first attempt to get us out of
>> their land.
>
> Me neither.
>
> Note that wasn't much of a value judgement. I'm not (at this moment)
> saying the US was right or wrong. I'm just saying that, historically
> speaking, the best way to reduce the US's military presence in your
> country has not been to start a war with the US. Gee, Bullwinkle, that
> trick *never* works.
The thing is, no trick ever works. We won't leave until we're good and
ready to go. We seem to have this notion that we're "protecting our
interests" (read: guarding the oil) by doing that, so the logical
conclusion is either to strike back or to destroy the oil fields. Since
the oil fields provide the basis for the economy in those countries, that
ain't gonna happen. But even then, that was tried by Iraq in the first
gulf war (burning the oil fields in Kuwait).
They're not left with a lot of options. If "suck it up and live with an
occupying force" isn't acceptable, there ain't a lot else they can do
other than retaliate in the only ways that we seem to understand. Even
if it gets them stomped into the ground.
> I'll grant you if you've run out of options and you think God is on your
> side, it might seem more reasonable.
Yep. And that cuts both ways, obviously - Bush's initial blunder was
calling this war a "crusade" (remember that?). Because that word doesn't
mean *anything* culturally or historically in the middle east.
They declared a holy war, and we responded with a term that inspires holy
warriors. Brilliant move on Bush's part. And once that genie's out of
the bottle, it is NEVER going back in.
>> "Imagine that you didn't believe in Christ" "But I do!"
>> "Yeah, but imagine if you didn't!"
>> "Why on earth would I do that?"
>> "To see a different point of view"
>> "But that point of view is WRONG"
>> "And you know that how?"
>> "Because it's not MY point of view"
>> etc.
>
> Heh. BTDTGTTS.
It really is funny in a sad way, isn't it?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> But taking troops into Iraq was seen as an invasion of holy lands. So we
> repeat the cycle - they want us out, we become more entrenched in the
> region. I don't see how that's supposed to break the cycle.
I'm vigorously agreeing. :-) I'm just pointing out that committing more
terrorism to get the US *out* is as silly as sending the US in to
prevent terrorism by using the military.
> But even then, that was tried by Iraq in the first
> gulf war (burning the oil fields in Kuwait).
Well, the fields they burned weren't their own. A bit different, that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:03:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But taking troops into Iraq was seen as an invasion of holy lands. So
>> we repeat the cycle - they want us out, we become more entrenched in
>> the region. I don't see how that's supposed to break the cycle.
>
> I'm vigorously agreeing. :-) I'm just pointing out that committing more
> terrorism to get the US *out* is as silly as sending the US in to
> prevent terrorism by using the military.
I don't disagree with that. I think we're both agreeing here. :-)
>> But even then, that was tried by Iraq in the first gulf war (burning
>> the oil fields in Kuwait).
>
> Well, the fields they burned weren't their own. A bit different, that.
From what I recall, the Iraqis (or maybe more accurately, Saddam)
believed they were.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2008 18:09:43 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
Summing up your opinions I bet you're a popular guest at dinner
parties :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:19:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> Summing up your opinions I bet you're a popular guest at dinner parties
Well, for the few that I get invited to, I am. :-) But that's because I
only go to the ones with friends, and my friends tend to hold similar
opinions. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> From what I recall, the Iraqis (or maybe more accurately, Saddam)
> believed they were.
OK, I'll grant you that one. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:06:34 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> From what I recall, the Iraqis (or maybe more accurately, Saddam)
>> believed they were.
>
> OK, I'll grant you that one. :-)
Ah, good, that means my recollection was good. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2008 20:12:10 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:19:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Summing up your opinions I bet you're a popular guest at dinner parties
>
>Well, for the few that I get invited to, I am. :-) But that's because I
>only go to the ones with friends, and my friends tend to hold similar
>opinions. :-)
>
>Jim
Next time I have a dinner party, you are on the list ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2008 20:12:10 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:19:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Summing up your opinions I bet you're a popular guest at dinner parties
>> Well, for the few that I get invited to, I am. :-) But that's because I
>> only go to the ones with friends, and my friends tend to hold similar
>> opinions. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Next time I have a dinner party, you are on the list ;)
Hey, Stephen, let's invite Warp and Andrew as well }:-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:16:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2008 20:12:10 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:19:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Summing up your opinions I bet you're a popular guest at dinner
>>> parties
>>
>>Well, for the few that I get invited to, I am. :-) But that's because I
>>only go to the ones with friends, and my friends tend to hold similar
>>opinions. :-)
>>
>>Jim
>
> Next time I have a dinner party, you are on the list ;)
Should be fun, hopefully I'll be in the country when it happens. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:22:50 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>
>Hey, Stephen, let's invite Warp and Andrew as well }:-)
Why not? There are quite a few from this ng I'd like to invite ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5 Jun 2008 12:42:09 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Next time I have a dinner party, you are on the list ;)
>
>Should be fun, hopefully I'll be in the country when it happens. :-)
>
Next time you are here we'll have an Int PovCon at least :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>
>>Recently when RETURNING to Canada, (that would be the country of my
>>citizenship,) from the US, I had to endure a close screening by a crew
>>of smarmy homeland security agents. My mistake was that I was riding on
>>a bus rather than in a car. Now, while I consider it invasive, I can
>>understand that these freaks feel the need to monitor who is crossing
>>the border in either direction. But the complexion of the 'interview'
>>was that I somehow had to meet the approval of these American agents,
>>before I would be allowed to return to my own country.
>
>
> Well, it makes sense. We can never know what those Canadians are up to.
> Ever seen the South Park movie?
>
True, it's probably better for all concerned to just keep them out of
their country.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
