This time it was taken to far, people got to greedy and was VERY illegal.

The discovery Channel, the History Channel, movies, and now a new series about an alien invasion are all preparing humans on earth for the idea that aliens exist.

No scientist I know of will say for certain that we are alone in the universe.

More than 75% of people today believe that UFO's are real, and that aliens exist.

Records of Sky ships go back to the 1700's.

Aliens..... exist.

Does anyone doubt that?

Do they look human? Are they among us? Are they friendly or are they planning on taking control of the earth?

If and when they do.... will humans be their pets, their slaves or their food?

Fingerprints? Bull crap. Al-Qaeda is a just a name made up by the powers that create propaganda. It is not an organization of international terrorists. It's just the new "boogie man" that they want us to be afraid of. Just because someone said that they "suspect Al-Qaeda" that means jack. They always suspect Al-Qaeda. That, after all, is the current popular "boogie man" that gets all the press. Where are the ties? Where are the so-called finger prints?

The person they arrested in Norway was from Britain.

Who you happen to believe Osama bin Laden was is not the point. The point is, to sanction and condone assassinations of suspects regardless who they may be is not a deed of "the good guys."

The selling of a commemorative coin honoring the killers/heroes/assassins is really bad taste.

Who ever is running this show is criminally insane.

That would be our leaders.

Criminally insane and in very bad taste.

Immoral. Illegal. Insane.

WRONG.

I've got a question to any athiests(naturalists) who are interested. (And yes, not all athiests are naturalists). I should note first of all that I am genuinely curious here. So:

If there is no god or gods and only what can be proved scientifically is true then where does meaning and purpose for human life come from? Sure, we can invent meaning for ourselves but isn't that basically self delusion? The very same criticism leveled at theists? The only purpose I can see from a naturalists worldview is that we must make a baby and raise it is able to make babies itself... and then we die. Is that really all our lives mean? Or is there more?

There is an obstacle in my dating routine that I just can't seem to get past. After getting knocked down by it for about the 5th time in a row, I'm going to have to ask for advice on this one. This is new to me and not supposed to be how dating works.

So.. it always seems to be the same routine. I meet someone new, she seems very interested, I also become interested, we exchange phone numbers, facebook, etc, we enter the "we're talking" stage. We talk for a week or two, learn all about each other, express even more interest, that we like what we are hearing and are lucky to have met and so on. Arrangements are made for a first date (or meeting, in mingle cases), I get excited, she seems excited, things are going well in my eyes, no-one is being creepy, rude, controling, weird, etc... all of the potential is there!

And that's when it happens.. About 3-4 days before the first date, suddenly the texts or calls or emails just stop. The attention I was getting is suddenly just stripped away. I don't sweat it, I don't freak out, as I am used to this happening by now. I calmly wait until the end of the day, or the next day, and send out a simple "hey, how are you doing today?" or something like that. I either get a one word reply like "good" or "busy" or just get ignored all together.

By the time our planned date comes around, my crush has disappeared into thin air. I will ask "Hey are we still meeting up today?" but won't get a response. And that's it, I'll never hear from her again. I even had one just delete and block me online for no apparent reason.

I don't get it. I don't understand. I would understand the abandonment if I was being a pig, being rude, being creepy or something like that, but I'm sure that isn't the case. How can things be going along so well one day and then gone the next? People's feelings, emotions, and interests don't change overnight.

posted by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2011 20:58 UTC, submitted by fran
IconIt's strange. Microsoft has been patent trolling the heck out of the Linux kernel for a long time now, and is still using these patents against Android today in its protection money scheme. However, as LWN.net illustrates, Microsoft makes quite a few contributions to the Linux kernel. Shouldn't this invalidate their patent claims?

LWN.net regularly investigates and summarises the various contributions to the Linux kernel, making lists of who contributes the most. Now that version 3.0 of the Linux kernel is about to hit the big wide world, it was time for another one of these investigations.

Microsoft proposed a total of 361 changes to the Linux kernel, putting it in seventh place on the list of companies contributing the most to the kernel. To give you an idea - Red Hat provided 1000 changes, and Intel 839. Independent developers contributed 1085 change sets.

Now, this doesn't say a whole lot, since it doesn't take the size of the changes into account. As H-Online notes, Microsoft's changes are small and touch only a few lines of code; Microsoft changed 11564 lines of code (1.3%), while Intel, for instance, changed a whopping 163232 lines (18.1%). Most of Microsoft's code revolve around the driver for its HyperV virtualisation interface

Still, this got me thinking. In The Netherlands, there is this TV show called 'De Rijdende Rechter' ('The Travelling Judge'), which revolves around a judge taking on all kinds of small and hilarious cases, like trees hanging over neighbour's gardens, fences protruding 3 inches onto other people's property, and so on. It's hilarious.

Now, imagine Microsoft is bringing a case to the Rijdende Rechter. Microsoft claims that his neighbours (a family) are building a shed a few inches over the property line so that it actually covers a minutely small strip of Microsoft's land. The shed is usable as it is, but the neighbours continuously improve it inside and out, painting it, replacing some of the wooden panelling, installing lights, and so on. Microsoft demands that the judge orders the neighbours to either pay rent for the small strip of land, or tear down the tiny sliver of the shed on Microsoft's land.

How strong would Microsoft's case be if the neighbours building the shed told the judge Microsoft had actually been helping in building the shed, even though it knew about the placement of the shed and the property line issue? I can assure you - it would make Microsoft's case considerably weaker. Helping to build the shed while knowing it protrudes on his land would would constitute a form of approval.

But then, maybe I'm applying too much logic here.
http://www.osnews.com/story/24960/Microsoft_Contributes_361_Changes_to_Linux_3_0

And how does this relate to America?

Your post is so stupid and dangerous, it should declared a hate crime.

And without a special person who can find a need and fill that need, great wealth wouldn't exist. What's your point? That because a society allows each person to reach their fullest potential, those who have the most success should be over taxed? Why should they try as hard, when they receive diminishing returns with more effort?

Such pathetic attempts at logic are committed in these forums. It's sad.

I never said it was "moral" to work in a sweatshop, I said it's moral to build and run them there. It is a very great boon to 3rd world citizen who gets to work in a sweatshop. Sweatshops are moral in 3rd world countries, because it offers the citizens a better alternative than their country can allow. It also creates more jobs than the country already has. It also gives the employees job experience that will come in very useful as the economy grows.

Maybe the reason you don't believe in what Jeb Bush has said is because you are incapable of understanding what he said? I'm not saying that you have a mental deficiency, but rather an emotional one. You are clearly intelligent, but you allow your emotions to blind your reason. You should calm down and look at the facts rationally. I didn't always believe sweatshops were good, I educated myself. If someone says something you don't agree with, you don't have to lash out at them from pure emotion, you can research the subject and come to an informed decision.

actually, no, as i see it anyway. bailing out families so irresponsible as to get themselves in such a fix, most families weren't so stupid, would have two negative effects. one, it would do nothing to save the mortgage banking system that those of us still need who did NOT succumb to the greed of a 'cheap home' that we could not afford in the first place; and two, it would have fostered the same risky behavior in the future. when people see the government as their savior from stupidity they become as guilty as the financial institutions for risking it all knowing they are 'too big for the government to allow them to fail.'

Governments seem to enjoy overly complicating things don't they? I guess it justifies their existence...

Absolutely I support sweatshops, don't you?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqtS3sFVy7s



Let's be honest, "sweatshops" really are good for growing economies. People who work in sweatshops are actually far better off than their neighbors who don't. The statistics show that.

So yes, I support sweatshops, it's the moral position.

I think a nice guy would just be himself. He should treat others that way he wants to be treated. Its not rocket science.

This is so true -- and I don't know if it's "wisdom" or just simple resignation, but I have reached the point where I can accept the idea that there just aren't going to be any more relationships for me. I understand that I don't need another person in order to function. I understand that my own worth does not have (and never did have) anything to do with my status as an adjunct to another person.

Have you ever read "He's Not All That Into You?" Guys have code phrases for things like, "It's not you, it's me" when it really IS you and they're trying to let you down easy.

Women have code phrases too. And for some women, telling you you're a "nice guy but" sometimes means that they're not attracted to you; they just don't want to hurt your feelings.

creating life is solely a 'heterosexual privilege' so the responsibility for that life is PRIMARILY and NATURALLY upon the shoulders of those HETEROSEXUAL partners which have the sole privilege of being able to do so

all the rest is a smokescreen that has little to do with my reasoning
as homosexual couples are no less guilty of break ups and infidelity or any of the issues that lead heterosexuals to divorce,,,

but yes, as adults , we should ALL be looking more closely at how our actions affect community and family,,,

this is different from outlawing divorce

I do feel that the interest is 'communal' and 'familial', preserving the FOUNDATION which brings us all into existence in the first place

supporting those who wish to take it to the extreme of making a lifetime commitment to EACH other as well as the children they may create together

as to divorce, it is likewise in the interest of the children that these should be granted, for whatever reason,,, in my opinion

if children are in an unhealthy home, it may be more in their interest for those adults to divorce than to be forced to remain together

I would not be opposed to making divorce more difficult though, perhaps it would deter people from marrying the wrong partner if they didnt feel it was so easily 'fixed'...