Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: deoxy.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to deoxy.org.

Comments · 80

  1. Very, very few Americans understand the facts. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful · on U.S. Continues Biological Warfare Research

    By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent that has ever existed in the world.

    The writer of this is an American who is very concerned about his government's participation in violence. In his opinion, a person doesn't really love his or her country unless he or she is willing to look at and understand areas where the country needs improvement. The same principle applies elsewhere. A man doesn't really love his wife if he turns his back when she is having serious, difficult-to-understand problems. And, a person doesn't really love himself or herself unless he or she tries to understand and resolve his or her own inner conflict.

    Strictly speaking, it is the U.S. government that is responsible for the violence, not the people of the United States. Very, very few Americans understand the facts presented here. There are many Americans who support violence, and who angrily reject these facts, but even those probably would not want their money being spent on violence if they fully understood the financial and social impact on their lives.

    The U.S. government has directly killed about 3,000,000 people since the beginning of the Vietnam war. Most of those, an estimated more than 2,000,000, were in Vietnam, a very poor country that did not threaten the United States.

    Historians say that the number of people indirectly killed by the U.S. government is at least another 3,000,000, for a total of 6,000,000. For example, U.S. bombing of Cambodia left that country destabilized, and the forces of violence controlled Cambodia for years after the U.S. bombing.

    The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the 58 years since the Second World War. The list below includes only countries bombed, not countries in which the U.S. government was responsible for other violence. The list includes only violence since the Second World War, not the extensive violence before the war. Most U.S. citizens are surprised and skeptical when they see the list, so a few links have been provided to supporting information. For more information, try the Google search engine or see the links below.
    1. Afghanistan, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003
    2. Bosnia, 1994, 1995
    3. Cambodia, 1969-70
    4. China, 1945-46
    5. Congo (now Zaire), 1964
    6. Cuba, 1959-1961 ("Bay of Pigs" invasion)
    7. El Salvador, 1980s
    8. Grenada, 1983
    9. Guatemala, 1954, 1960, 1967-69
    10. Indonesia, 1958
    11. Iran, 1987
    12. Iraq, 1991-2000, 2003 (The U.S. government used radioactive bombs in the first war against Iraq. See United States War Crimes Against Iraq for what appears to be an accurate history.)
    13. Korea and China, 1950-53 (Korean War)
    14. Kuwait, 1991
    15. Laos, 1964-73
    16. Lebanon, 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
    17. Libya, 1986
    18. Nicaragua, 1980s
    19. Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site.
    20. Peru, 1965
    21. Somalia, 1993
    22. Sudan 1998. There are doubts
  2. Re:From the 30's... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1 · on New Heinlein Novel
    ...by 1990 a new race of ape-people will take over the planet. By 2003 the war against the apes will have been won...

    You sure about that? ;)

    j/k

    -T

  3. Re:Resdistribution by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1 · on Distribution of Wealth in a Robot-Driven World
    You quoted Ayn Rand: "America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to 'the common good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."

    Sorry, but Rand here and elsewhere is spouting apologetic nonsense, to justify the strong taking from the weak without compassion. She has no understanding of the many possible senses of self or types of selfishness (beyond a narrow conception of self as solitary body). If you had stopped paying attention in your history class :-) and instead lucked into some stuff written from other than the perspective of the current victors, you would have discovered that the United States of America's prosperity was built in large part on the genocide of the native peoples and theft of their land (including by use of biological warfare) [which destroyed many cultures far more egalitarian and generally pleasant than at present], the slavery of black people ripped from their native worlds and treated more cruelly and peversely than most slaves throughout the ages, the theft of patents and copyrights and trade secrets from old Europe, and the exploitation of seeds and plants and animals imported from a variety of countries by immigrants (as well as indigenous ones cultivated for millenia like corn, potatoes, and tobacco again taken without just compensation from the natives), assistance from countries like France which saw value in the US prospering to the detriment of England, as well as clever politics and global economic strategy which helped destroy Europe during two world wars and led to immense profits from the destruction and reconstruction of those countries (including by the Bush family). Yes, there was a lot of hard work involved too by some -- usually not those who got most of the riches. Try reading the book A People's History of the United States or the book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong or even the online: Confessions of a Recovering Economist. Never forget that there are two human components to wealth (beyond a healthy natural world underlying it all) -- labor and rent (or other monopolies enforced ultimately by state violence including patents and regulatory powers). It is in the control of rent monopolies that the greatest wealth is to be had -- and usually the greatest unfairness. And the trail of control over monopolies rarely leads entirely to labor -- except perhaps of an ingratiating or militaristic sort. Much of the generally undertold and underappreciated history of the US from the Trail of Tears to the fight for the forty hour work week (now being lost again) revolves around power struggles over monopoly power to make decisions about some resource (i.e. who has the right to use a piece of land or set working conditions in some factory).

    If we are very lucky, robotics may bring us back to a level of spiritual and economic prosperity enjoyed by many native peoples for thousands of years, but supporting larger populations (maybe quadrillions around the solar system with self-replicating space habitats powered by sunlight and using asteoridal ore). Most anthropologists now accept that agriculture and related work was a huge step backwards in health and living conditions for most people, and only happened because of rising populations and ever more sophisticated militaristic bureaucracies.

  4. Re:people aren't obsolete by Cyno · · Score: 1 · on Distribution of Wealth in a Robot-Driven World

    try this link instead

  5. Re:We could have had this already by now... by Cyno · · Score: 1 · on Distribution of Wealth in a Robot-Driven World

    I also like this phylosophy.

  6. Re:Hybrid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on New Great Ape Discovered?

    Barbara Bush?

  7. Information that supports my earlier comment: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1 · on The Beast of Brussels

    Information that supports my earlier comment:

    Judging from their comments, most people who post to Slashdot have very little understanding of the activities of the U.S. government. There have been many, many abuses concerning the collection of information. To prevent some of these abuses, the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978, and has since modified the law seven times. "The purpose of FISA was to create a wall between criminal investigations and intelligence gathering that would decrease the numerous abuses by the government's intelligence and law enforcement agencies during the 1950s, 60s and 70s."

    The U.S. government has killed about 3,000,000 people since the beginning of the Vietnam war. The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the 58 years since the Second World War. The list below includes only countries bombed, not countries in which the U.S. government was responsible for other violence. The list includes only violence since the Second World War, not the extensive violence before the war. Most U.S. citizens are surprised and skeptical when they see the list, so a few links have been provided to supporting information. For more information, try the Google search engine or see the links below.
    1. Afghanistan, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003
    2. Bosnia, 1994, 1995
    3. Cambodia, 1969-70
    4. China, 1945-46
    5. Congo (now Zaire), 1964
    6. Cuba, 1959-1961 ("Bay of Pigs" invasion)
    7. El Salvador, 1980s
    8. Grenada, 1983
    9. Guatemala, 1954, 1960, 1967-69
    10. Indonesia, 1958
    11. Iran, 1987
    12. Iraq, 1991-2000, 2003 (The U.S. government used radioactive bombs in the first war against Iraq. See United States War Crimes Against Iraq for what appears to be an accurate history.)
    13. Korea and China, 1950-53 (Korean War)
    14. Kuwait, 1991
    15. Laos, 1964-73
    16. Lebanon, 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
    17. Libya, 1986
    18. Nicaragua, 1980s
    19. Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site.
    20. Peru, 1965
    21. Somalia, 1993
    22. Sudan 1998. There are doubts that the pharmaceutical plant that was bombed was making weapons.
    23. Vietnam, 1961-73 (An estimated 2,000,000 Vietnamese were killed.)
    24. Yugoslavia, 1999

    There are many sources for this information. For example, see this PBS web page: PBS: A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions (PBS is the Public Broadcasting System in the U.S.) Also see From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan: A Century of U.S. Military Interventions [zmag.org] and The government of the United States is a consistent opponent of international law. [prairie-fire.org]

    I put some links and explanation together about wh

  8. In hidden ways, the U.S. government is violent. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Pentagon Soft-Pedals Total Information Awareness
    It's painful to me, but I have had to accept that the U.S. government is corrupt in some ways. United States government agencies, such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI, have become global police that operate mostly in secret, without control or oversight by the people, and mostly without any kind of effective external control. United States citizens are allowed to know about these agencies only what the U.S. government wants them to know. (NSA is National Security Agency. CIA is Central Intelligence Agency. FBI is Federal Bureau of Investigation. These are official U.S. government web sites.)

    Hidden elements of the U.S. government have become the most violent force the world has ever known, with a long history of acting in a violent manner and supporting violent dictatorships: The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the 58 years since the Second World War. The list below includes only countries bombed, not countries in which the U.S. government was responsible for other violence. The list includes only violence since the Second World War, not the extensive violence before the war. Most U.S. citizens are surprised and skeptical when they see the list, so a few links have been provided to supporting information. For more information, try the Google search engine or see the links below.
    1. Afghanistan, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003
    2. Bosnia, 1994, 1995
    3. Cambodia, 1969-70
    4. China, 1945-46
    5. Congo (now Zaire), 1964
    6. Cuba, 1959-1961 ("Bay of Pigs" invasion)
    7. El Salvador, 1980s
    8. Grenada, 1983
    9. Guatemala, 1954, 1960, 1967-69
    10. Indonesia, 1958
    11. Iran, 1987
    12. Iraq, 1991-2000, 2003 (The U.S. government used radioactive bombs in the first war against Iraq. See United States War Crimes Against Iraq for what appears to be an accurate history.)
    13. Korea and China, 1950-53 (Korean War)
    14. Kuwait, 1991
    15. Laos, 1964-73
    16. Lebanon, 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
    17. Libya, 1986
    18. Nicaragua, 1980s
    19. Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site.
    20. Peru, 1965
    21. Somalia, 1993
    22. Sudan 1998. There are doubts that the pharmaceutical plant that was bombed was making weapons.
    23. Vietnam, 1961-73 (An estimated 2,000,000 Vietnamese were killed.)
    24. Yugoslavia, 1999

    There are many sources for this information. For example, see this PBS web page: PBS: A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions (PBS is the Public Broadcasting System in the U.S.) Also see From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan: A Century of U.S. Military Interventions [zmag.org] and The government of the United States is a consistent opponent of international law. [

  9. Until George W. Bush et al. : +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic · on GNOME 2.3 Snapshot, KDE 3.1.2 Released

    Are arrested and delivered to the :
    International War Crimes Tribunal

    Cheers,
    W00t

    Get Your War On

  10. Re:but Saddam by wwest4 · · Score: 1 · on Updates on War in Iraq
    The military may uncover things. It seems just as likely they may not. History dictates that in either case, they will claim to have found it. If you don't belive the U.S. will lie to provide justification, then you have overlooked a lot of history.

    - look at the CIA fact book entry on Chile. then ask any economist how they think Chile is doing since the Pinochet coup.

    - look at us war crimes in the first gulf war. Try getting the current government to acknowledge that the U.S. has committed war crimes.


    Breaking weapons and ecological treaties could also be considered duplicitous.


    America is capable of doing good, but don't doubt for a minute that we have a lot of moral clearance over Saddam Hussein. Collectively, the U.S. can be just as insidious and even more deadly.

  11. Re:Are you *daft*? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1 · on Strike on Iraq

    Yes, with Iraq having a substantially higher probability of
    exporting such weapons than, say, Paraguay.

    So you consider "possibility of exporting weapons in the future which
    may be used against the United States" as grounds for *war*? I'll bet
    every country in the world with arms manufacturers (*including* the
    United States) has supplied enemies of the United States with
    weaponry.

    Well, that's not your job. But I prefer that our leaders take
    notice of psychopaths with nuclear weapons (and not assist them in
    development of said weapons, as our previous administration did).

    It's lovely how every world leader that we have friction with ends up
    being branded as a psychopath. I'm sorry, but there's not that much
    correlation with insanity. Kim Jong Il is eccentric, perhaps, but
    hardly a psychopath.

    As for assisting with nuclear weapons production, that's bullshit, and
    I strongly suspect that you're aware of it. Assisting a country in
    building clean energy sources is very much legitimate, *especially*
    when the reactors being built are useless for producing weapons-grade
    matter (unlike the existing reactors that they are replacing). If you
    can believe that Bush didn't know that Kim had a nuclear weapons
    program for years, I don't see how you find Clinton not knowing being
    entirely implausible.

    And by "not paying attention" I mean that North Korea is hardly any
    kind of immediate threat to the United States, and branding it as a
    member of an "axis of evil" is just stupid.

    As in they unanimously agreed that Saddam had blatantly violated
    the terms of the cease-fire and numerous resolutions, and not only
    refused to do anything about it, but (tried to) refuse to let us and
    our allies do anything about it.

    Okay, first of all, this is hardly abnormal. The UN stance is that
    war is a last-ditch effort.

    Saddam violated international law as regards us? Take a look at this
    facinating document, where someone went to the trouble of documenting
    all of *our* violations of international law as regards Iraq here.

    What if the UN enforced international law the way you want them to, by
    declaring open season on violators? They say "Hell, anyone who wants
    to take potshots at the United States is free to go for it?" I'm
    using your own criteria...

    The stated goal of the United Nations is to try to work toward peace.
    Nobody wanted a World War III. The United Nations is at least aiming
    for a pretty obviously good goal.

    Irrelevant. Yes, we helped some unsavory characters in the past
    because of our struggle against communism. Just like at one time we
    allied with Stalin. (Hopefully skirting the edge of Godwin
    there). Maybe in retrospect it was a mistake, but the fact is that
    it's done and we have to deal with the present.

    So why is it irrelevant when *we* are involved with terrorism, and
    should be judged innocent after the fact, and not anyone else?

    Some of the people here are struggling against secular capitalist
    government, which they view as dangerous and morally bankrupt, and
    something that spreads easily. Very much the same way we viewed
    communism. Why does this carte blanche to do anything to fight
    against opposing ideologies only apply to us, and not to them?

  12. Deodorant is a capitalist conspiracy! by neuromortis · · Score: 5, Funny · on Male Sweat Makes Women Happy

    I thought everyone knew that?

  13. Re:Completely safe for civillians? I think not. by mikerich · · Score: 3, Interesting · on U.S. Air Force Developing Microwave Weapon
    Hospitals shouldn't be considered valid targets in the first place.

    They're not valid targets, they're specifically protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention.

    But then, water and power plants are protected under Article 54 of the Fourth Protocol of the Geneva Conventions. Britain and America are both signatories of the protocol, yet they bombed Iraqi water, sewerage and power systems during the last Gulf War. Neither party has been charged with war crimes.

    Best wishes,
    Mike.

  14. Re:Big Brother is More Than That by loosenut · · Score: 1 · on Tech's Answer To Big Brotherism

    If you're going to say "bombing Afghanistan makes us no better than the terrorists", then please back it up.

    Did I say that?

    Show me the civilian casualties. Show me the civilians who were targeted on purpose. Show me either the official military plans to bomb civilians, or the unofficial military plot to bomb the civilians. Show me civilians who died for any other reason than because they were hanging around military targets.

    It's hard to show you, because they are all dead. Seriously, there is no plot, but the US military has tried to convince us of the greatness of smart bombs for a while, and that's bullshit. More big brother propaganda to alleviate any guilt we might feel about our bombing-for-a-good-lifestyle.

    "We won't fight wars, because people die," is an adimirable sentiment, and one we should all agree on. Until we do, though, it's a pretty stupid principle to base foreign policy on.

    Meanwhile, should we base foreign policy on controlling oil reserves at the cost of innocent lives?

  15. Re:NOT splitting hairs by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2 · on Solaris: Another View
    Anybody who missed that shouldn't be writing a review. Then again, I'm not surprised; most of the people in the theater were too distracted by what they thought the movie was about (ooh! Clooney!).

    Ah, the "if you didn't like it, you're clearly too stupid to appreciate it." defense. Do you like my expensive, tres chic clothing? It can only been seen by intelligent people.

    Sometimes a movie you don't understand is just bad, not deep. Failure to transmit your message to the audience may indicate that the film's creators are stupid, not the audience.

  16. Re:"Everything is perception" by AkkarAnadyr · · Score: 1 · on Politicizing Science


    It's happened before.



    Check out the Gipper's Karma.

  17. Really Good News by xyzzy-ladder · · Score: 0 · on U.S. Developing 100-Kilowatt Laser for Strike Fighters
    This is great news! Now the U.S. will be unstoppable! First, we should invade Iraq and take all of the oil. The last time, when there was a multi-mile long traffic jam of people escaping from Kuwait, we bombed the cars in front of the line, and the back of the line, to prevent escape. Then we bombed the hell out all the people in between. You should see the pictures of the charred corpses! Kewl! Now all we'll have to do is zap the front and back with the lasers!

    I imagine we could also help out Israel and depopulate the West Bank - or at least blind them all. We could start by blinding the children at a young age. I mean, how many blind kids will grow up to be terrorists? Most likely just beggars.

    I can't wait for the handheld version. Imagine in China, when some little Chinese girl isn't making my Nikes fast enough - ZAP, there goes your eyes, you little commie beeatch!

    Go U.S. Space Command! If you think about it, this just goes to show that the US is the best country in the world.

  18. Re:Be wary of all international orgs. by rickwood · · Score: 0, Flamebait · on ICANN's Time Is Up, According To John Gilmore

    Actually it's quite simple: Bush the Younger is trying to protect his father. Bush the Elder and his henchmen were accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity for the Gulf War. This was not widely reported in the press, naturally. There was a book written on the subject, War Crimes, by Ramsey Clark. Google turned up this index of the charges.

    Basically, the United States Federal Government wants to be able to oust other peoples leaders and governments over war crimes, but not be subject to the same rules.

  19. Re:Long term goals by Cyno · · Score: 1 · on Iceland to Voluntarily Go Oil Free in 30-40 Years



    That's funny because I had long term goals and a clear direction since I was 9 years old. Then I learned about capitalism and the US government and the MPAA and RIAA, etc. Now I don't have any long term goals or direction. I'm winging it. Its nice that I have the option to do this, but I bet it says something kinda sad about the state my country is in. I'm even considerring moving out of this country. See, here's the thing. The goal of every American is to get rich quick. You don't do that by setting long term goals, saving every penny, etc. You do that by being a hardcore capitalist like Bill G or any of the fortune 500. I don't want to make money. I could care less. I've got everything I want. But I want to work. I want to make cool stuff and learn new things and grow technically. But I can't in this economy or with capitalism because companies don't want me to learn they want me to handle tickets or work. So it doesn't matter. I guess I'm happy... Check out what I found: the abolition of work

    That basicly says it all. I knew what I wanted to do when I was 9 years old. It wasn't to work it was to play. And I play very productively, managing systems, network, software, you name it. I'm interested in it all as long as I'm working with similar people. But corps don't want me to play. They want me to work. So they change the way I work 'til it becomes less productive and more beaurocratic in nature. The only thing I can think of is someone up top of the org chart likes it this way. The world would be a much better place if we didn't have to work or worry about money, but then it'd be too good, too perfect. We can't have that!

  20. State Religion by benjamindees · · Score: 1 · on UCSF Acknowledges Tests on Human Cloning
    The country was built on the premise that the government will not adopt a state religion, and this seems to be rapidly coming to an end.

    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the US has had a "state religion" for some time now. It is called secular humanism. It is a religion according to the Supreme Court. It is taught exclusively in government schools. A priesthood of humanists has been created and is funded from public monies. And, guess what, the religion of secular humanism supports stem-cell research. Imagine that! Seriously, if the humanists would do what they say they do and question the existing moral authority, they would have to stop believing their own hype.

  21. Re:Iraq by hyperizer · · Score: 1 · on E3: Epic, US Army Develop Games as Recruitment Tool

    Yes, but Iraq was provided millions of dollars of miliary equipment from the U.S. in the '80s (to fund its war against Ayatollah Khomeini). Cheney's company helped rebuilt Iraq's oil industry after the Gulf War.

    The U.S. was convicted of war crimes due to the way it conducted the Gulf War. It's estimated that 500,000 Iraqi children have died during the U.S. embargo (even though Iraq is still America's fourth largest oil supplier).

    The situation isn't so black and white.

  22. Re:You're reading too much into this... by Lord+Hugh+Toppingham · · Score: -1 · on Review: Black Hawk Down
    Also, your "just following orders" threory here doesn't pan out either. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has a regulation that states that if I am given an unlawful order (such as killing an unarmed civilian), not only am I obligated NOT to follow the order, but it is my duty to report the incident to a superior officer.

    Hmmm. In theory you are correct. In practice however, unarmed civilians are often slaughtered by US military (and that of other countries). The Geneva convention is disregarded by the USA. The USA is found guilty of war crimes but carries on as if nothing has happened.

    Your country is slaugtering thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. Where are all the soldiers "reporting the incident to a superior officer". Of course they are not. It goes against the team spirit of the Army, and would be a career limiting move.

    The average grunt has a low IQ (or he would not put himself in the firing line in the first place) and only follows orders. Basic training is designed to produce someone programmed to follow orders. There's no point pretending otherwise.

    That's not to say that I disapprove of the USA's actions in the war against militant Islam, just that the hypocracy is a bit hard to stomach. War is a nasty business. It's hard to see why anyone would voulanteer for it, unless they truly had no alternative, or had been brainwashed.

  23. Re:Boycott CRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on The Return of Eric Weisstein's World Of Mathematics

    Microsoft does write "free" software. Not free as in "free beer," or "free speech," but "Free Tibet."

    I would say:
    Microsoft does write "free" software. Not free as in "free beer," or "free speech," but "Arbeit Macht Frei".

  24. Who is really at fault in this "War"... by dada21 · · Score: 4, Troll · on The Constitution in Wartime

    Why is the country so pro-government all of a sudden, when its so easy to prove that its exactly those in the elite that control its every move?

    In the war against Iraq, many of those at the top of the pyramid (G.H. Bush, Cheney, Schwartzkopf, etc) were found GUILTY by the International War Crimes Tribunal. The war against Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, but about oil interests. This was never covered in the media, and many United Staters today fully support the actions we used against the "enemy." Saddam is not crazy, not stupid, and was probably not wrong in his reacquisition of Kuwait. He even asked us if he could do it, and we didn't say no.

    In Afghanistan, oil interests of our President and his cronies are the only thing at stake. The proof against bin Laden is thin at best, and the translations of bin Laden's video that everyone thinks he is accepting blame are off at best. But the 500 years of oil (at current consumption rates) that UNOCAL and the elite's friends want access to is currently controlled by the Taliban. Again, ignored by the government controlled media.

    Freedom of Speech is gone when it is regulated. With the FCC punishing anti-government sentiment from its beginning, its obvious there is no freedom of speech in the TV and radio media. Since the newspapers are now controlled by those same media mavens, they too should be ignored.

    The Libertarian philosophy of non-intervention and free trade is more important than ever to focus on. Even lifetime Libertarians though are towing the government line and wanting revenge, even though the proof against Afghanistan and bin Laden is shamefully non-existant.

    And the biggest kick is that we are not even at war. We can't be. If we are, it is illegal, as the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to declare it.

    Want to stop terrorist militant attacks on our nation? Limit the powers of Congress as set forth in the Constitution. Create a new foreign policy of non-intervention by our government, remove all sanctions and embargos, tariffs and subsidies. Let good people trade with whoever they want, and stop subsidizing big business in every way.

    I think many slashdotters would understand that 99% of the problems we complain about here is not Big Business' fault at all, but governments and the people's. We LET Congress give Big Business subsidies, so why are you complaining that M$ has a monopoly? If Congress couldn't subsidize, M$ wouldn't donate to their campaigns, and we wouldn't have such a monopoly-like fiasco. On the same hand, when we give Congress the power to subsidize business, we give the U.S. "interests" in other countries. This is the cause of almost all our problems, including terrorism!

    Limit big government, and you will limit so many problems that we face in the world and locally each and every day. Give the government more power, and you only make it worse.

    If you don't believe me, why not drop me an e-mail and lets debate it one on one. I, too, was a non-believer, until I spent just a few months researching the realities of "Big Government."

  25. The myth of the "surgical strike" by exploder · · Score: 2 · on War: What Can Technology Do For Us?

    The question of whether we can accomplish our goals in this conflict with a high-tech, sanitary, "surgical strike" like we did in the Gulf War is based on the false premise that we've ever acheived anything with this type of technology. In fact, the great majority of air sorties flown in the Gulf were thoroughly conventional, although we were never shown much of this type of action on CNN.

    The Myth of Surgical Bombing in the Gulf War [deoxy.org]

  26. What a load of crap by loosenut · · Score: 2 · on Techies Rampant on Drugs

    This article is just another piece of propaganda published by idiots who have fallen prey to the lies of the War on Drugs.

    Not only do we have fantasy worlds like "Wake County" (see above posts), but we have sensationalist jouralism. Sure, the authorities are seizing more drugs, and more folks are coming in from the dot-com world, but what does that mean? Greater population = more drugs, and booming e-conomy = more people in the dot-com world. Since there is going to be a given number of people in any sampling of society that use drugs (in general), it makes sense that as the number of people in any particular group increases, the number of drug users is going to increase. The article doesn't say anything at all about the actual percentage of Research Triangle workers are drug users. It might be 50%, it might be 0.01%.

    The author is taking a hot topic (booming tech), and trying to use it to push his own (stupid-ass anti-drug) views.

    I agree that drugs can be dangerous, but there is a difference between a user and an abuser. A well-informed individual can use drugs to his/her benefit (whether it be having a good time, getting more work done, or gaining spiritual insight).

    Stop the drug war!

  27. Re:New Physics? by const · · Score: 1 · on Automatically Inflating Martian Balloon

    Cool! It is the new meaning of impossible. Now it mean "NASA does not know how to do it". Look at this paper and this paper to learn more about such thinking bug. These papers worth reading.

  28. Re:No, it's something else by nmarshall · · Score: 1 · on Boo No More

    The US offers the most freedom to its people -- yes, including the freedom to go broke and lay off and fire people, who then have the freedom to have no healthcare and not enough food.

    you call that freedom? in the US we have the freedom to be a wage-slave. why do we work soooo much?

    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE

  29. Re:No, it's something else by nmarshall · · Score: 1 · on Boo No More

    The US offers the most freedom to its people -- yes, including the freedom to go broke and lay off and fire people, who then have the freedom to have no healthcare and not enough food.

    you call that freedom? in the US we have the freedom to be a wage-slave. why do we work soooo much?

    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE

  30. Re:Property is obsolete? by nmarshall · · Score: 1 · on Censorship != Innovation

    "How do we make a living off our creativity in a universe of infinite abundance?" This is a hard question, one I don't claim to have a complete answer to. Nevertheless, it is the core question, and it must be thought about.

    i to have wondered about this... but INHO work is the problem. and i think that OS is leading us to a world where it will be too expence to be employed. think about it. banks will soon not have teller, because the net does the job better.

    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE