I'm not dismissing what he's saying. Far from it: I'm paying attention to what he is saying. It's all very nice to want to believe in world peace and all that, but clearly his statements are there to package what the real objectives are. I'd be surprised if he didn't want these things to eventually happen. Hell, I want world peace, and a removal of all nuclear weapons, too. But the fact is that I also understand that no leader on earth is going to do anything to threaten the power of their state, least of all the United States. Everything he is talking about is primarily about reducing the threat of others to the United States, and maintaining US dominance. He is simply being very statesman-like, and saying it in a very diplomatic way.
It's political posturing, with more important objectives.
If you RTFA, you'll notice he's talking primarily about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, which is what just about every US president has called for over the last several decades. The prime focus seems to be non-state actors (read: al-Qaeda), and states without nuclear weapons (read: Iran).
He states quite clearly that the US will keep a nuclear deterrent as long as a nuclear threat exists.
He wants to reduce the US arsenal in conjunction with a reduction of the Russian arsenal. Working to reduce one's nuclear arsenal is not the same as working towards a nuke-free world.
Obama is manoeuvring the US into a position whereby it forces other countries to appear as aggressors and stumbling blocks to world peace. Currently, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not ratified by the US and China, and both India and Pakistan have not signed it either. He is making these statements in the knowledge that it is likely that China will not agree, and India and Pakistan will not join, thus giving an "out" in future i.e. the nuclear threat is there.
Besides which, this is also no doubt designed to try and bring the Russians on board in supporting the missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
This seems to be an attempt to try and isolate Iran as well. He says in his speech, "We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the Treaty without cause. And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation." It again seems clear that he is manoeuvring the US into a position of peace-maker, and compromiser.
In short, the "nuke-free world" is window-dressing for more real, practical objectives.
Sure, I fully admit I don't understand why people use the "Beta" label, except as some sort of marketing gimmick.
First, I didn't mention anything about bugs, so I wasn't confusing the issue in that regard.
Second, I would probably agree that most professional websites are not currently live tested, but the "users are testers" model is certainly what's being touted, and this is likely to become the norm because there are a number of benefits. The idea of release early, release often, and have dynamic A/B testing whereby features are presented to select groups of users renders the need for "Beta" obsolete. Amazon already does this.
But, the fact that we don't have live testing does not detract from the fact that the idea of a version for the user has no meaning. I mean, when did anyone ever ask themselves, "What version of Google is this?" In the age of websites and the internet, we think in terms of a service, not a piece of software. There are no upgrades, installations, or versions necessary. Beta is irrelevant, because sites are in perpetual beta.
Does this remove the need for internal versions, or internal labels? Of course not. They are as vital as ever. I can also accept labelling something as a Beta if the site is in private testing. But my point is that, to the user, versions simply don't exist in the same way as we're used to, and to have websites open to the public carrying the Beta label for 5 years suggests that it is nothing but a gimmick and lacks any real meaning.
Generally, any usage of the Beta tag is meaningless in the world of web-based applications. In fact, it's meaningless for most web-pages. The reason is very simple: a site should be constantly working to improve and change. The change that happens is not bound by the traditional software version release, either. All websites are, by default, in a perpetual beta, whether its users know it or not, which makes the label itself meaningless.
I'm not attributing behaviour to someone being an atheist, I'm stating that being an atheist does not somehow make a leader any less dangerous than a someone who is religious.
I also remain entirely unconvinced by the argument that "it's often the ones who brag about how religious they are, and tell us how they speak to God". You will often find that religion was secondary to their central aims of whatever atrocity they carried out, and is a method of justification, just in the same way that a claim to scientific principles or knowledge could be used to justify atrocities (eugenics, for example). Religion was secondary to Blair and Bush's aims when they invaded Iraq for geopolitical goals, for example. The Spanish Inquisition was created and directed by the Spanish Crown, not the Church, and was used for power.
What we should be concerned his people who based their actions and judgements upon faith, rather than reason and evidence
Atheism does not bestow reason on people. If you think it does, then we're in serious trouble, because people will then blindly follow the atheist leader who claims to have reason on his side.
I'm more concerned with anyone who has a claim to some absolute knowledge, or absolute conviction, whether based on religion, or science.
Stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism.
That's an easy claim to make, considering that atheism itself is not a religion. Besides, Tony Blair (used as an example by the parent) didn't come out and say, "Hey, I'm invading Iraq in the name of Christianity!"
I can give you many cases when religious people started genocide in the name of their God[s] for religious purposes.
I'd be curious to hear your examples. Not saying that there are none, but I'll bet you anything you like that a majority are going to be cases where the actual aims and purpose were to keep power, and expand empire - just like Stalin.
I don't hold atheism or religion responsible for what leaders do./. makes a big deal of "correlation is not causation", and it's never been more true than in this case. Most bad leaders breathe air - therefore, air is bad.
Atheism and religion provide necessary justifications and moral conviction to leaders in carrying out these atrocities. They would not be able to carry these out unless they had the moral conviction to do so. But, more often than not, it is the system of world order we have established that dictates that these actions take place. You're likely to find worrying problems with any politician picked at random that is seeking to further the aims of the state, irrespective of whether they are atheist or religious.
An excellent example of this point is actually Aztec human sacrifice. Most people believe that what they did this based on religious grounds, but this is actually not true. Bernardino de Sahagun was a missionary to the Aztec people, and he noted that they did not defend human sacrifice with religious reasons: they claimed that it was no different in concept to the European system of waging war. Most of the victims were actually prisoners taken from enemy tribes, or people they had subjugated. I'm not denying that religion played a crucial role in this process, but it is far from clear that the real reason for the sacrifice had more to do with religion than it had to do with empire building and power.
It is not me who is judging the "vast majority" of non-religious or religious leaders. I'm judging our leaders, full stop, and the vast majority rule nation states in an anarchic world of no rules or laws that dictates they must achieve power at all costs.
I'm impressed at your ability to quickly denounce them as being religious, and that communism was their religion. When in doubt, they're not true atheists. Tell me, are you equally quick to denounce atheists who adhere to capitalism as being "religious"? Or those that support democracy?
I think you have an axe to grind, and are simply not willing to accept the truth that atheists and religious people can be equally as tyrannical, murderous, and genocidal as each other.
And atheist leaders or secular governments are somehow better? Here's a thought experiment: how many atheist and secular, non-religious governments and leaders can you think of in the 20th century that committed mass atrocities against their people, or others?
If you think quite hard about it, I'm sure you can name a few. Stalin is probably a very good place to start.
I would rather we questioned the whole concept of the state itself, and the type of governance we accept. It's far more likely that we encourage super-structures around our lives that stifle human freedom and creativity that encourage this type of behaviour, than it is because our leader is religious.
Lord helmet: Have you found them yet?
Corporal:No, Lord Helmet, they're still not on the scanner.
Lord Helmet: Well, keep looking for them.
Colonel Sanders: Pardon me sir, I have an idea. Corporal, get me the video cassette of Spaceballs the Movie.
Corporal: Yes, sir.
Lord Helmet: Colonel Sanders, may I speak with you please?
Colonel Sanders: Yes, sir.
Lord Helmet: How can there be a cassette of Spaceballs the Movie? We're still in the middle of making it!
Colonel Sanders: That's true sir, but there's been a new break through in home video marketing.
Lord Helmet: There has?
Colonel Sanders: Yes, instant cassettes, they're out in stores before the movie is even finished.
Lord Helmet: Nah...
... whatever happened to believable April Fools stories? It was a lot more fun when you could really get fooled instead of just being able to discount a story within the first line. (Kids, get off my lawn, too!)
RTFC, perhaps? From Smashing Magazine's editorial team, 16th comment:
actually, it is April 1st in Kiribati already (see Link [is.gd]) and since we have readers all across the globe, it sounds quite OK for us to publish the post now. We don't have that many readers from Kiribati, but it would be unfair to publish it when it's April 2nd there;)
I don't get it. The Pirate Bay launches a cheap, unlogged VPN in order to provide a more private service, but now they're encouraging sharing via Facebook?
You'd think that Facebook is the last place they'd want to be, since it just seems to be the complete antithesis of what I understood the Pirate Bay to be about.
Except that it is happening suddenly in relative terms. How long does it take for oil and coal to be created (and in turn store carbon), and how quickly are we releasing it back into the atmosphere?
Current estimates place the process of creation of oil to be around hundreds of thousands of years. To try and claim that it's taking a long time in human years and thus will have little or no effect is disingenuous, considering that some already believe we're approaching (or have already approached) peak oil (ie. we've depleted approximately half of the world's oil reserves), and we've managed to achieve that in around 200 years.
And while I agree that quoting the "majority" as a reason is not a valid argument, your logic that the majority were wrong before therefore the majority are wrong now is a logical fallacy. Clearly the majority currently believe that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe, which demonstrates the absurdity of your argument.
Exactly. If they wanted to try optimize the site, they could start looking at the number of Javascript files they include (8 on the homepage alone) and the number of HTTP requests each page requires. My Facebook page has *20* files getting included alone.
From what I can judge, a lot of their Javascript and CSS files don't seem to be getting cached on the client's machine either. They could also take a look at using CSS sprites to reduce the number of HTTP requests required by their images.
I mean, clicking on the home button is a whopping 726KB in size (with only 145 KB coming from cache), and 167 HTTP requests! Sure, a lot seem to be getting pulled from a content delivery network, but come on, that's a bit crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not dismissing what he's saying. Far from it: I'm paying attention to what he is saying. It's all very nice to want to believe in world peace and all that, but clearly his statements are there to package what the real objectives are. I'd be surprised if he didn't want these things to eventually happen. Hell, I want world peace, and a removal of all nuclear weapons, too. But the fact is that I also understand that no leader on earth is going to do anything to threaten the power of their state, least of all the United States. Everything he is talking about is primarily about reducing the threat of others to the United States, and maintaining US dominance. He is simply being very statesman-like, and saying it in a very diplomatic way.
Oh, and for a copy of the speech, you can get it here.
It's political posturing, with more important objectives.
In short, the "nuke-free world" is window-dressing for more real, practical objectives.
Personally, I think it's !__TAG_WIDGET__
Maitre D: And finally, monsieur, a wafer-thin speaker.
Sure, I fully admit I don't understand why people use the "Beta" label, except as some sort of marketing gimmick.
First, I didn't mention anything about bugs, so I wasn't confusing the issue in that regard.
Second, I would probably agree that most professional websites are not currently live tested, but the "users are testers" model is certainly what's being touted, and this is likely to become the norm because there are a number of benefits. The idea of release early, release often, and have dynamic A/B testing whereby features are presented to select groups of users renders the need for "Beta" obsolete. Amazon already does this.
But, the fact that we don't have live testing does not detract from the fact that the idea of a version for the user has no meaning. I mean, when did anyone ever ask themselves, "What version of Google is this?" In the age of websites and the internet, we think in terms of a service, not a piece of software. There are no upgrades, installations, or versions necessary. Beta is irrelevant, because sites are in perpetual beta.
Does this remove the need for internal versions, or internal labels? Of course not. They are as vital as ever. I can also accept labelling something as a Beta if the site is in private testing. But my point is that, to the user, versions simply don't exist in the same way as we're used to, and to have websites open to the public carrying the Beta label for 5 years suggests that it is nothing but a gimmick and lacks any real meaning.
Generally, any usage of the Beta tag is meaningless in the world of web-based applications. In fact, it's meaningless for most web-pages. The reason is very simple: a site should be constantly working to improve and change. The change that happens is not bound by the traditional software version release, either. All websites are, by default, in a perpetual beta, whether its users know it or not, which makes the label itself meaningless.
What, did Soulskill hit his cap or something? DAMN YOU TIME WARNER CABLE FOR KEEPING ME IN SUSPENSE!
I'm not attributing behaviour to someone being an atheist, I'm stating that being an atheist does not somehow make a leader any less dangerous than a someone who is religious.
I also remain entirely unconvinced by the argument that "it's often the ones who brag about how religious they are, and tell us how they speak to God". You will often find that religion was secondary to their central aims of whatever atrocity they carried out, and is a method of justification, just in the same way that a claim to scientific principles or knowledge could be used to justify atrocities (eugenics, for example). Religion was secondary to Blair and Bush's aims when they invaded Iraq for geopolitical goals, for example. The Spanish Inquisition was created and directed by the Spanish Crown, not the Church, and was used for power.
What we should be concerned his people who based their actions and judgements upon faith, rather than reason and evidence
Atheism does not bestow reason on people. If you think it does, then we're in serious trouble, because people will then blindly follow the atheist leader who claims to have reason on his side.
I'm more concerned with anyone who has a claim to some absolute knowledge, or absolute conviction, whether based on religion, or science.
For a list of atheists, from The Irrational Atheist:
Burn him!
Stalin did not kill people in the name of atheism.
That's an easy claim to make, considering that atheism itself is not a religion. Besides, Tony Blair (used as an example by the parent) didn't come out and say, "Hey, I'm invading Iraq in the name of Christianity!"
I can give you many cases when religious people started genocide in the name of their God[s] for religious purposes.
I'd be curious to hear your examples. Not saying that there are none, but I'll bet you anything you like that a majority are going to be cases where the actual aims and purpose were to keep power, and expand empire - just like Stalin.
Steve Fielding is the missing link? Holy shit, to think that after all this time it was right under our nose!
Again, you're missing the larger point.
I don't hold atheism or religion responsible for what leaders do. /. makes a big deal of "correlation is not causation", and it's never been more true than in this case. Most bad leaders breathe air - therefore, air is bad.
Atheism and religion provide necessary justifications and moral conviction to leaders in carrying out these atrocities. They would not be able to carry these out unless they had the moral conviction to do so. But, more often than not, it is the system of world order we have established that dictates that these actions take place. You're likely to find worrying problems with any politician picked at random that is seeking to further the aims of the state, irrespective of whether they are atheist or religious.
An excellent example of this point is actually Aztec human sacrifice. Most people believe that what they did this based on religious grounds, but this is actually not true. Bernardino de Sahagun was a missionary to the Aztec people, and he noted that they did not defend human sacrifice with religious reasons: they claimed that it was no different in concept to the European system of waging war. Most of the victims were actually prisoners taken from enemy tribes, or people they had subjugated. I'm not denying that religion played a crucial role in this process, but it is far from clear that the real reason for the sacrifice had more to do with religion than it had to do with empire building and power.
It is not me who is judging the "vast majority" of non-religious or religious leaders. I'm judging our leaders, full stop, and the vast majority rule nation states in an anarchic world of no rules or laws that dictates they must achieve power at all costs.
I'm impressed at your ability to quickly denounce them as being religious, and that communism was their religion. When in doubt, they're not true atheists. Tell me, are you equally quick to denounce atheists who adhere to capitalism as being "religious"? Or those that support democracy?
I think you have an axe to grind, and are simply not willing to accept the truth that atheists and religious people can be equally as tyrannical, murderous, and genocidal as each other.
And atheist leaders or secular governments are somehow better? Here's a thought experiment: how many atheist and secular, non-religious governments and leaders can you think of in the 20th century that committed mass atrocities against their people, or others?
If you think quite hard about it, I'm sure you can name a few. Stalin is probably a very good place to start.
I would rather we questioned the whole concept of the state itself, and the type of governance we accept. It's far more likely that we encourage super-structures around our lives that stifle human freedom and creativity that encourage this type of behaviour, than it is because our leader is religious.
Spaceballs got there ages ago.
Lord helmet: Have you found them yet? :No, Lord Helmet, they're still not on the scanner.
Corporal
Lord Helmet: Well, keep looking for them.
Colonel Sanders: Pardon me sir, I have an idea. Corporal, get me the video cassette of Spaceballs the Movie.
Corporal: Yes, sir.
Lord Helmet: Colonel Sanders, may I speak with you please?
Colonel Sanders: Yes, sir.
Lord Helmet: How can there be a cassette of Spaceballs the Movie? We're still in the middle of making it!
Colonel Sanders: That's true sir, but there's been a new break through in home video marketing.
Lord Helmet: There has?
Colonel Sanders: Yes, instant cassettes, they're out in stores before the movie is even finished.
Lord Helmet: Nah...
... whatever happened to believable April Fools stories? It was a lot more fun when you could really get fooled instead of just being able to discount a story within the first line. (Kids, get off my lawn, too!)
... someone says correlation is not causation?
That's hilarious, thanks for the link :)
For those wanting to have a brief look at it, the BBC have an interview with Alan Rhodes from Nasa, and some video of the craft.
I don't get it. The Pirate Bay launches a cheap, unlogged VPN in order to provide a more private service, but now they're encouraging sharing via Facebook?
You'd think that Facebook is the last place they'd want to be, since it just seems to be the complete antithesis of what I understood the Pirate Bay to be about.
Except that it is happening suddenly in relative terms. How long does it take for oil and coal to be created (and in turn store carbon), and how quickly are we releasing it back into the atmosphere?
Current estimates place the process of creation of oil to be around hundreds of thousands of years. To try and claim that it's taking a long time in human years and thus will have little or no effect is disingenuous, considering that some already believe we're approaching (or have already approached) peak oil (ie. we've depleted approximately half of the world's oil reserves), and we've managed to achieve that in around 200 years.
And while I agree that quoting the "majority" as a reason is not a valid argument, your logic that the majority were wrong before therefore the majority are wrong now is a logical fallacy. Clearly the majority currently believe that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe, which demonstrates the absurdity of your argument.
* Small clarification: by 20 files, I mean 20 Javascript and CSS files.
Exactly. If they wanted to try optimize the site, they could start looking at the number of Javascript files they include (8 on the homepage alone) and the number of HTTP requests each page requires. My Facebook page has *20* files getting included alone.
From what I can judge, a lot of their Javascript and CSS files don't seem to be getting cached on the client's machine either. They could also take a look at using CSS sprites to reduce the number of HTTP requests required by their images.
I mean, clicking on the home button is a whopping 726KB in size (with only 145 KB coming from cache), and 167 HTTP requests! Sure, a lot seem to be getting pulled from a content delivery network, but come on, that's a bit crazy.
Short URIs are the least of their worries.