Ardit20

Or late night orgies. What is so bad about that? Sex is pleasure. Everyone should be able to have the pleasure if so they please.

I did not use the word desire, hence I do not see why you would?

I think searching is more of a necessity, at times perhaps more than friends. My friends might for example not be able to tell me about 1200 BC, something which a history student might need to know, or to tell me how I can code something, which google might be able to tell me.

Some friends might be able to. They might be able to tell me things which google can not. Facebook however is only a platform where one interact with friends. As I said hanging out places change all the time. Unless however something revolutionary comes forward to make search a different experience, I do not see the number of visits to Google falling for the foreseeable future, while I might be able to in regards to Facebook. Chatroulette for example could have been a great contender had it not been overtaken by penises. People might also decide to physically hang around more once they get bored of the novelty effect of facebook. Unless they want to spend hours in a library however, I do not see people suddenly deciding to stop using the internet for searching.

In conclusion, google, or searching, is a necessity, Facebook is merely a substitute which can not, quite, become a necessity as it can not quite compensate for actual interaction with friends.

It is indeed amazing, but the answer can be simpler. Without pain, there is no such thing as not pain. You need to feel what pain is, so that you know what it feels like to not have pain.

If we all were in some sort of utopia, or heaven, we would be dead bored. Life is good because we keep learning and in pain there is much learning which is different from the learning one acquires when not in pain. If there was only one state of being, there would not be many opportunities for growth. In life however there are many states of being between absolute pain and absolute not pain which gives one so much room for growth and learning and also variety for everyone to be unique in their own way.

Once one stops learning however, everything is familiar, and eventually, boring. Which is why the concept of heaven or hell is attractive at first, but only because we are not in heaven or hell. It is like buying those gorgeous trousers you wanted, or car, which eventually becomes just a pair of trousers or just a car. So too with heaven, if it existed, it would be great in the first days or week or month, but in a year you would get dead bored of it and want to move to America again :P

The media might make them seem like they do not pass the common sense check, but judges are people of many years of real life experience and the system of precedents manages to make the law fairly clear.

Also, if a claim is trivial, or pursued regardless of its merits, the claimant might be made to pay punitative damages.

As for the economy, I think it would serve it well if my reputation can be kept intact and not damaged for no reason.

"I also have a rule that anybody that does not want to be reasonable has to sue me"

That might work with the average Joe or the guy in his basement, but a public figure might, knowing that he vastly out powers you in terms of law expertise, follow through. So too a company. That is, if they actually have any basis for it. You can not be sued for opinions, but you need to make it clear that they are opinions, and you can not be sued for saying the truth. If you blatantly defame someone however, again the average Joe might not want to go through the hassle as he would have to pay lawyers, but some other person would have no reason to hesitate. So if you defame someone, just offer them to amend it, if however they are making threats without any base at all, then yeah sure stick with your rule.

I agree. I would also suggest that Google search plays a much more fundamental role to the internet than Facebook.

Facebook in my opinion is a trend, like yahoo chat was or usernet. Its a way for people to communicate and people move their groups and places where they hang around on the internet all the time, but everyone needs to do their weekly shopping, that is everyone needs to search and unlike real life supermarkets, on the net there is just google.

Nope. I am 1 in 7,000,000,000

Times Roman is so very hard to read on the internet :(

How do you know that the birthrate of startups is expanding? I was expecting to see numbers and graphs.

what's the new school thinking?

"Additionally the posts on HN are more likely to be negative"

What exactly do you mean? That people do not comment on here, ohh this is brilliant, we love you, you're our god, even if the guy said something obvious or something which isn't brilliant at all, or do you mean that here people write down their thoughts as they are not biased. I do not see why the latter would necessarily mean negative however? There are criticisms, but are reasonable criticisms something negative?

I think posts here are positive, even for the owner of the site, unless he takes it personally. You know, its just business :P

or lack of consent

I did not say the US government. I said:

"we have read only recently by certain people asked to be arrested in defiance of international law"

Why would I want a screenshot? This was written at 8:30 US time

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/21/smear-campaign-suspecte...

That might be irrelevant. My point was that a conspiracy theory is something which has no base in reason. The entirety of these events however cries out for an explanation.

Conspiracy has a bad canotation. You can have a conspiracy to overthrow some government, you can also have a wacky belief into something which has no base in any reasonable doubt to believe. The latter being the way the word conspiracy theory is used.

There is however no conspiracy here. A national government, the most mighty power in any nation, seeks to arrest a man and makes such intention known to the entire world. A man this is about who we have read only recently by certain people asked to be arrested in defiance of international law and without having committed a crime, a man who was accused by the US government for having blood on his hands for leaking information which apparently has nothing new to say, a man of whom people are speculating as to how the government will be ridden of, the preferred choice of the speculators being to kill him.

A conspiracy is something which has no base in reality. This is beyond that. In this instance there is no base to not believe in the "conspiracy".

Also, it is telling that only hours after an article was submitted here which did not make the front page of HN, an article by CNN on a blog on CNN, asked whether this is a smear campaign that the Associated Press reports that the warrant is withdrawn.

I for one have no reasonable doubt. I wish not to engage in any games of thought. I would rather see this for what it is, an absolute disgrace by a democratic government who is conspiring against its people and their will.

Wow. This is simply amazing.

He had that sentiment already which is encouraging.

I am confused now. You just said:

"That's the thing you see. This man does not know better!"

- because

"If he knew better he would have been running a startup and laughing his way to the bank."

- That is make money. rather than

"This man is obsessed with one idea. Freedom." - that is dedicating himself to a principle.

His files are closed for 70 years! So it is not a good example, hence the added details about being the dawn of the war in Iraq and although he was on the news, not quite known in the way the wikileaks founder is.

This government appears to be thinking of reopening the files however. People have come out saying that there are doubts about the inquiry, that its conclusions are not plausable. My point was therefore that we live in a democracy where the death of someone, even where mighty powers are concerned, is not simply shrugged under the carpet.

Your post might have been sympathetic, but you basically argued that because he has the will to leak information without the consent of those who want to keep it secret, there is a high probability that he would have sex with a woman without her consent, which frankly is ridiculous.

I suppose, if I do something without the consent of my parents, I might also have sex without the consent of a woman? That's just silly.

He does not know better because he values a principle above money?

You can't just shoot him. This is not communism, nor nazism, nor fasicm, this is democracy, where the rule of law is supreme. If he is shot, there would be no people arguing about pointing fingers, everyone would know who dun it, there would be little room for doubt.

Here in the UK they are reopening the inquiry into Dr. Kelly's death, and his death, whether a suicide or otherwise, came amides the dawning of the war in Iraq, so perhaps of a different magnitude, but, he was also a relatively little known person.

You can accuse him of rape though. Now that would leave you doubting. It is not so hard, pay some person a million, or ten million, and its a fairly good deal. It is tremendously hard to prove an untruth and they might get the result that they want. Otherwise, he would still be the alleged rapist, and fox news would probably just call him a criminal, and the trial can go on and on and during that time he might be kept in prison.

As for whether he is a criminal or being framed, both may be true indeed, but that neither may be true is not quite possible. If he innocent, he is being framed, either by the victim, or something way bigger than the victim.

"I understand that this fits a narrative" As doctors might say, if the symptom fits the illness no point looking at other things. It might in this case indeed be different as we are not diagnosing an illness, but common, what are the chances that the guy raped someone and molested someone? What are the chances that he did so now, only a week or so after some nutter called for him to be arrested even though then there were no allegations of committing any crime.

I hope however that you are right. Otherwise, our society would have arrived at that point where the little child cries, but the emperor has no clothes, and at least we all will stop pretending that our system is brilliant, that freedom of speech is indeed paramount, that in this country the rule of law rules for kings and peasants alike and instead will realise that we need to fight for such things and not take them for granted.

That is quite clever. You can't just arrest him. You can't just kill him either because then we all would know who dun it, but rape is well, anyone can be accused of rape, it would be your word against the "victim".

It would be quite a circus show though. We would get to learn about every little detail. In this kind of case, it should not be a sample of the public, that is the jury of 12 ordinary people of the public who decide, but the entire public. Have the entire trial in public, in front of the cameras, and let the public know everything the jury does.

I did not mean actual uniform, I meant how we all today wear t-shirts and jeans and same coats and everything whether one is in Russia, or Japan, or even China I think, or of course Europe and America and Brazil. Its like, where has diversity gone in dress.

Didn't we simply copy what we thought was their fashion sense. If their statues or architecture came down to us in colour, we would have a preference for colourful statue and architecture. Just goes perhaps to show how much influence does culture have on ones perception of such things.

How different is the dress in these pictures from the comparative ones posted in colour of America. Very much unlike today uniform like clothes all over, except for perhaps Arab nations.

Offensive? I think the sculptures with colours on, especially the one of the archer, is absolutely gorgeous.

I think also that painting buildings would add some variety and brightness to the dull streets of cities. The problem is of course however that paint wears off quite often.

common, wolves can't type!

My advice is this. No one here can help you. They will say things, you might think ohh that makes sense, yeah I should do that, but those are just thoughts.

Habit is as much biological as mental. Pavlov showed for example a century back or so conditional behaviour and cue conditioning and all that. So, the way to fight nature is to obey her.

It is too easy to come here and ask others, but thinking for yourself is not that hard. Just take your time to look at the ceiling and think for a bit and see what you come up with. If you do come up with anything, this time you actually gain understanding and not just knowledge.

Of course you were criticising. You just said he is not smart, in a harsh tone, and maybe even imply that he is stupid.

While all those things might be true, a smart person would realise early on that being nice pays off and not being nice has consequences, he seems to have realised that too, so no point picking at something which is hardly relevant to what he enquired.

What is the alternative title in english?