Loonix

What's wrong with just shooting them in the head? (Except the act of state-commited murder) What's more effective than that? As someone said, killing a human is not pretty, but this at least is effective. Lethal injection doesn't kill instant either. Far from it.

Please indicate gender___male__ age__22______ 1. When it comes to thrill seeking, which description best fits you: a) nature lover b) weekend warrior c) adrenaline junkie d) extreme athlete e) other (please describe) Combination of A and C 2. What type of thrill seeking activities do you actively engage? Skydiving, rockclimbing, highlining (slackline at altitude), scubadiving, freediving 3. How many hours per week do you concentrate on these activities? _____ 0-4 ______ 4-8 _____8-12 ___X___ 12 or more 4. How much experience do you have in your given thrill? skydiving: about 3 years rockclimbing: 4 years highline: 2 months scuba: 7 years freediving: almost a year 5. Given the following scale, how would you rate the risk involved with your thrill(s)? Skydiving: 8-9 rockclimbing: 8 highline: 7 scuba: 7 freediving: 4 6. Choose the phrase that best fits you: _X_a) I may not be an ‘adrenaline junkie’ but I like the opportunity to engage in thrill seeking activities because I enjoy it/them. ___b) I am a true thrill seeker. I chose this lifestyle because I enjoy mastering my discipline. ___c) I participate in thrills to promote a positive outlet for stress rather than seeking negative sensations. ___d) A rush of adrenaline and knowing that I just cheated death keep me coming back. I wouldn't skydive if it wasn't for the great bunch of skydivers I hang out with either :) 7. When seeking a thrill, I am willing to put myself at risk I think you got the question wrong. Any skydiver ALWAYS accepts SOME risk. It's not "risk" or "no risk", there's always some. The question is how much of it you accept. I won't do things where I don't feel in control.. But I do like to go to the edge of that, if that makes any sense

I've done that.. I'm not doing it again ;) much pain and bloody goggles and helmet was the result.

my point was: What you said has already been said several times, and I have answered it already. I won't repeat myself...

Indeed. I can't even begin to imagine what impact it makes on a person to see your family being blown to bits by a "smart bomb" dropped from a b-52, who came to "save you" in the first place.

The problem is that Microsoft is NOT the government - they can do pretty much what they like with THEIR product. While it is provided to the public, it is NOT public property - just like DZ.com. You should probably read the rest of the thread before replying...

misaltas, RhondaLea: I know that microsoft has their right to do this, and from a business perspective, they may even be WISE to do so. But their right to do it was not my point. I asked if it is "right" to do it. Do you "like" that they do it. I guess I should do a poll on peoples opinions, but I'm really done with the topic. I wasn't made for speakers corner, I think.

so lets rephrase your original statement: By this analogy, we now have something like "since the internet can pose a threat, lets force filters on our users, and not even let them choose to turn them off, nor notify them when our filters censors something" What I wanted to know was basically if people are ok with this, and... I guess most people are. Personally I prefer the freedom to choose. And as you've pointed out, I do have that freedom, I'll choose another IM protocol, of course. It still worries me that people generally accept this kind of behaviour from the company behind the by far largest IM network. There's a limit to how far you can stretch the analogy. If you sent them an article, and they removed crucial parts of it and printed it.. I'd have a problem with that. Read my initial post again. This goes without saying. same. I should add that if you use another client than microsofts messenger, you will be notified that your message could not be delivered. The censorship happens on an msn server, not in the client.

alright, I still won't pretend to know anything about the legal system of the USA. But IF MSN could get in trouble because a user installed a virus because someone sent him/her the link over MSN chat protocol, then the legal system has a big problem, in my opinion. My following arguments would mean repeating myself, so.. I'll leave it at that.

Wrong. If that was the case, we'd see ALOT more viruses than we do

Even a bad lawyer could make a good case that you have not done all that you could. I have seen this with my own two eyes. If you really understood the current legal climate, you would understand why it has become necessary to do such things. I admit I have little knowledge about american legal system. But after being warned that the link probably is harmful, well screw that, *click*. Now you must either download a virus and install it YOURSELF (no, clicking a link does not install any virus), OR you must be running an OS without antivirus, firewall, and not having updated your OS (which happens automatically, for most). When people still manages to get viruses, I think it calls for educating the users, since that quite obviously is what is needed. Viruses will always be there. And if this is such an easy case for a lawyer, why haven't I heard about any lawsuits about it? I think I will do that. I posted here because I wanted to hear peoples opinions about it.

but I didn't, did I... Nope. He used to have, but not at the time of the invasion. The official reason to go to war was WMD. They needed a few more weeks to be sure, which they were denied. Their conclusion at the time being was that Iraq almost certainly did not have any. With the little more time they asked for, they would have made that for sure. And if Hans Blix and the inspectors thought the UN did their job, I guess that's good enough for me... I'm not saying NO links, I'm saying few terrorists had their origin in that area. Saudi Arabia was a close US ally before the WTC attacks, and as we all know, most the hijackers came from there. Is that "seeing the light" ? I've taken notice - what's your point? Ok, they are wrong, beucase YOU think that are wrong? Nicely put. If there will be a civil war is hard to say, of course. Lets say the situation at the moment is not very stable, at all... Well, I think we are stuck. You STILL seem to think that _everyone_ should welcome your invasion because you are The Good Guys (something that can be discussed alot further, in another thread..). I don't, and with that, I'll rest my case on that matter. I'm sorry if I don't see the relevance. Yes it is, and it does matter quite a bit. So you are saying it was some Bad Guy who ordered the kids out to throw rocks..? What would you tell YOUR kids about an invading force? They might just hate the invaders on their own! We don't know the age of them. But they do not look THAT young, and I don't see it as that unlikely that they are able to think for themselves.

Your favorite newspaper does it all the time, which is why you need to read more than one newspaper. Newspapers does not censor like this. They put forth different points of view, and yes, one should definately read more than one, for that reason. Not censorship? What do you call it then? MSN decides what you are allowed to see.. Call it whatever you want, I choose "censorship". Yes, most MSN users are dumbasses. But there's a limit as to how far you can go to protect someone. If a warning saying "This link can contain a computer virus, you must NOT click it unless you are 100% sure of what you are doing" does not help, well then you have done all you could. I would even accept it if it was blocked, but you at least got notified, AND there was an option in the menus where you could turn off the filter. I don't pay for any online newspaper. They are growing large, and they are ad-supported. I would NOT accept this kind of behaviour from them, and I doubt that too many others would either. I can't believe that people don't react to the following points: 1. The list of words is currently SECRET. This means that you don't even KNOW what you are not allowed to see. 2. You are not notified about the censoring. This servers no purpose whatsoever. Perhaps you like being babysit, I don't. Wouldn't it be funny if the government suddenly decided that any skydiving related information, ads, etc was to be censored because this sport is dangerous for people? It would decrease the number of fatalities since fewer people would be doing it...

I don't see the relevance in that, I have never supported Saddam Hussein. As many americans like to say, you can love your country even if you do not love your president. If you love your country, you defend it. With any means you have. Oh, so that's why the majority of terrorists in Iraq are from other countries. I get it now. Are you a terrorist if you fight against an invasion of.. Canada?

PHP is a scripting language that is run on a server. You could say "computer code, being what it is..." or "the internet, being what it is...." and make equally much sense. Can't wait to hear you say that when we're talking about your favorite newspaper doing the same. Irrelevant. We're talking censorship, people deciding what YOU are allowed to see. Insecurity if the internet in general is another discussion.

PHP having security issues has nothing to do with IMs. If this was it, microsoft really shouldn't let anyone use their OS, since it is so full of securityholes. Why is the list of words secret? A point is that we don't KNOW what is censored, especially since there is no notification. If you got a warning, such as "this link could leat to potentially dangerous code", or something, it'd be fine (as long as you could turn off the warning...). But they choose to babysit you and "know better". Wether this is ok for 99% of the population.. well, you don't know that. Simply because you don't know what words are censored. download.php is a common filename on the internet. gallery.php is a very common filename that will occur in URLs to image gallerys... Censoring this is pure stupidity. If they did not censor it, nobody would regard this as a hole in MSN. A hole in MSN would be that you can execute virus code on another computer, without that user installing your virus manually. And that is how 99.5% of all viruses are spread today: manual installation. Educating users would be a far more effective strategy than censoring them. If an ISP blocks mails, without me ever getting any notification, then yes, I have a problem with it. But comparing "download.php" (yes, the TEXT "download.php") to a mail containing an actual virus is quite far fetched, don't you think? Many use the "MSN can do what they want since it is their product" argument. I guess those who thinks so will also think it is ok when newspapers censors things they don't like.. Or simply lie about things, since hey, it's THEIR newspaper and if you don't like it, buy another one... well they microsoft engeneers perform at their usual low level. "download.php" is censored even if that is the entire message. I wonder how that text will harm you?

well thank god nobody put you in charge of crowd control.. So tell me again, what purpose this served?

and...? the Answer to the question is obvious only you didn't even know the answer...It's that on this topic that you are completely with knowledge or experience me being young means that its acceptable to beat up kids for throwing rocks at an invading force... well damn, you just changed my mind.

You spent alot of money, and alot of people died.. this means what? Alright, I'll fill you in. The war was about weapons of mass destruction. Officially, anyway. The likelyhood of there being any such was about 0 (ref. hans blix, UN inspectors, etc). About terrorism, well.. Iraq was not a source for that. Afghanistan was/is, saudi arabia (your preciouss allies) is, many other countries is, iraq was not high on that list. So the actual reason for the war can be speculated on, but just helping the iraqi people getting rid off their evil dictator..? You seriously believe that? Actually, yes I do. Zarqawi (who's Jordanian), Al-Queda, and their ilk are imported and very finite in numbers. In Afghanistan they had a pretty successful anti-terrorist campaign involving inviting them out of their caves and giving them jobs. The civil war is about sunni and shia. read http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article347806.ece You completely fail to see the point... Try to imagine yourself living in a country less superior than the USA. A superior force invades. Muslim ones, wanting to force many of their values on you. To them, Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world today, so this war would be justified, much like yours. Would you sit back and watch, since your president is such a terrorist? I'm saying you just can't expect people to welcome an invasion! Kids throwing rocks is a minor "offense", and capturing a couple of them and beating them up is not only pointless, but serves against the purpose these troops claim they are there for. About who organized them, is it so hard to believe they did that themselves? And does it matter? Chased off .. resolved .. They were not throwing rocks, were they? Sure, go ahead, chase them off.. It was resolved after that at least, since they had plenty of times to start beating them up... and...?

You're saying basically the same as earlier, but using more words... I still don't support Saddam Hussein. What you write here, suggests that the war was about helping the Iraqi people. We both know that's not it. That is a pretty optimistic scenario. Why is there so little control now? Do you think that Iraq will avoid civil war? I don't. They are doing things that YOU don't think they should be doing. I seriously don't understand how you can expect to invade a country and expect everyone to smile and wish you welcome. It has nothing to do with what the leader of the country has done. Even if the invasion was justified and "good", one would have to be pretty stupid to think that all the people would wish the invasion welcome. These soldiers goes after some kids AFTER the demonstration has been resolved, and starts beating them up. There is NO reason to do so. When the kids get back home, beaten up by coalition forces who came to "secure peace, freedom, yada yada".. What impact do you think that has on people?

I don't see the relevance in that, I have never supported Saddam Hussein. As many americans like to say, you can love your country even if you do not love your president. If you love your country, you defend it. With any means you have.

well, if foreign troops invades norway, I think I'd perhaps be throwing the molotovs.

I googled a bit. They were british soldiers. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1708159,00.html Do you think beating these kids up does any good, by the way?

Well, I'm trying to spark discussion :) The text on that page is not a credible source of information, of course, so I'm hoping someone else knows more about this. I would guess the cameraman is a soldier. With a past in pornbiz, judging by some of the.. sounds.. he makes.

http://abum.com/show/12999/troops_beat_kids.html Bringing peace, freedom and democracy (and other pretty buzzwords) to Iraq. Nicely done...