You suffer from a case of "over estimation" of American influence exaserbated by a need to feel "white guilt".
To explain that conclusion:
I read an article lately explaining that the Taliban are a product of a "lack" of US influence. I'm beginning to believe that is true particularly for the Middle East. The biggest hole in the "Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, etc..." guilt trips has been if America really did set them up as their puppet government then they would have no need to bite the hand that fed them.
The answer is a little Occam related. Its simpler to believe that the US tried to enact change with a minimal direct influence (Bay of Pigs style.) That minimal and indirect influence gave rise for planty of mistakes and backing the wrong people.
It makes sence if you don't want to stir the pot then give some backing to people who already wanted power, and already have a great following in the people (hence easier to set to revolution). Their rise to power they is trecherous and full of intrigue (lies). So why not after obtaining power, turn and sieze even more power by turning against the US? Its the type of people they are, and the type of following they have.
So the problem is the covert indirect involvement in other countries affairs. This is a work of few individuals in the US, and has no baring on what the US does and can do in a completely observable reconstruction.
Every case that the US had direct involvement a good government was set up and the people have lead democratic and relatively free lives.
The cases where they chose the more indirect covert road, they wound up backing people that wanted to take away freedoms (note that is different than saying they put them in power, such is simply an overestimation of American influence and an oversimplification of history). Isn't that the point? They are good if they increase their countries freedoms, represent minority rights, etc... (Like America learned to) and they are bad if they don't. They are bad if they try to invade their neighboring countries.
America is guilty of letting a secret organization have charge the of foreign policy execution. Kind of like the Warren Supreme court (which like the CIA actually did a lot of good things), they are guilty of being a little too pro-active in the wrong branch of government.
Luckily America has a way to fix these problems without bloody revolution. And whipping guilt trips of self pity isn't one of them.
In Afghanistan, if you really want white guilt maybe you believe they are a people who have suffered from a power that usurped authority by making contributions to one particularly corrupt party and president in America.
(Oh maybe you didn't hear that Osama made a $100,000 contribution to the DNC. They gave the money back but only after Clinton let an Saudi company have rights to an Ohio oil field. And only after the US stopped backing the Northern Alliance but continued to supply the Taleban. Its interesting that the lawyer for a Bin Laden terrorist and a imbezler of funds for Bin Laden is Clinton's golfing buddy, Vernon Jordon.)
Like Germany and Japan after wwII? They are allies now, but we didn't need to set up our own Government. We also advised in the setting up governments in Mexico, Panama, Niceragua and the Phillipines. All peaceful automonous entities where the people rule with all the rights and responsibilities of self-determination.
So, trolling your comment might be but it has a correct point mixed with an incorrect point. Yes every country has the right to war with another country when they are attacked. However taking over that country is not allowed or needed.
I'm glad to be a part of a country that is as well known for rebuilding its enemies as the USA.
I think the general point is that you can only deal rationally with people when they want to play the same game. While the measure of rationality is in question, it is a dead on conclusion that the above is true.
Also, I've taken to summarily discounting anyone that has to rely on an "omnipotent and omniscient media" to prove a point. People are misguidable, but not "manipulatable." Why? becuase we all have freedom and intelligence to use it. Anyone who says "you are being manipulated by X" is after X's job.
The phrase that comes to mind when I read your comment is...
"decided in a trial by combat."
I would decidedly not agree with those that say that America should sheepishly take 9-11 like a slap on the cheek, turn a few more becuase we have commited sins in the past.
I'm actually very concerned with many groups inside the US that foster the spirit of revolution, that they need to violently arrest power from an organization built with mechanisms to distribute power. And has tolerance for many other mechanisms that allowed for the Civil Rights movement.
Usually with the propagation of lies, or facts of combat measured against a stick of "If they had to do it violently then it was a wrong ideal." I suggest that there is another measure. What did they do with what they achieved so violently?
My problem with "violence is just wrong" is this, many people seeking power to avenge the wrongs of a percieved "big guy" foe. If you feel oppressed or unfairly treated which would be very easy to feel if you have little while your neighbor has a lot, you are likely to be sympathetic to such rhetoric. You may even feel justified in dealing out violence in retaliation to persieved injustice.
However, what do you do when your in power if you topple the big guy? What has the Taleban done with their power? What have many latin american and middle eastern dictators done? What did the US do after their rebellion? What did Hitler do becuase of his percieved injustice brought about by Jews?
In the Sesame street song, we sing "One of these kids is not like the other, one of these just isn't the same." Within 100 years America abolished slavery (even by war), granted womens rights, religious freedom. The freedom has increased (largely as a whole). The others cases the freedoms of the citizens decreased. The aftermath of the wars it fought has seen the rebuilding and befriending the enemy.
Now while my purpose is not to put a white hat on America, it is good to point out that for the most part freedom has been propagated at its hand. The other revolutions have been largely "Animal Farms". For all the Orwellian references, maybe its time to read that book again before striking out against your own government.
In the end, history judges these trials by combat. It is never decided that "violence" in and of itself is black hat, but the purposes achieved and enforced with it.
right, you have an observer at one point, and an observer at another. The speed of light is still constant across the distance of one light year no matter how fast your traveling in any direction.
No matter how fast they are moving away from each other, light still travels the same rate. Therefor the light should arrive in no more than two years.
In other words, if a car is moving away form you at near the speed of light, flashes its turn signal...
Re:How about OS's that should be brought back?
on
Niche Operating Systems
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
There was a book written about this episode (can't remember the title). It was a Ranger battalion caught in a military action underprepared and undersupported. It has been widely studied as a military blunder like a SEAL episode in Panama where they tried to take a airport hanger. Considering how armed a Ranger battalion is, and their training *and* that they were backed in a corner you can expect lots of casualties. The book insinuates the problem was an incompetant commander in chief.
However even in the article, the highest count mentioned was from the Somalian Government at 1000+, with the latest estimates hovering around 500. Another hopeless effort to wrest an article into something it isn't.
This was a US/UN action known and condoned by world diplomats, and was not targeted at civilians. That was also mentioned by the article.
EROS is alive and well, just nearing a 2.0 release that involves a lot of rewriting (kind of like where PleX86 is these days.) It involves many comprimises.
They mentioned something like EROS, called OppcOS.
Not even out of PreAlpha yet, and only two developers.
The plug out of the wall story was actually about KeyKOS although I bet EROS would survive that test also.
I like EROS's idea of having no filesystem. A hard disk is the permanent memory map, and regulary memory is just cache for it. The capability system is a very interesting one also, allowing fine grained security for every part of the system even peripherals (But I suppose OppCOS would have that even though I can find no info on it.)
Don't forget the random memory dumps that MS Word just *adds*. If the user was using win9x then you can read previous revisions, passwords, what they were browsing at the time, etc...
There have been many who have tried
Herding users with formats and died
So why do you think
another program that stinks
Won't push their own customers aside?
I feel like I'm in a parallel universe here. And in my universe there is no Bork (as a SCJ.)
Also, the Warren court is often critisized for its soliciting cases so it could set essentialy legislate through litigation, which is a large breach of Judicial authority.
They made some ground breaking decisions, and most of them I wouldn't argue with.
The President selects, congress accepts, and they judge according to their own values. Its sane and rational. I've found that there are a large number of people that argue with that process only becuase they didn't get to decide who would be the justice. (I feel that way many times myself.)
Not everything that runs on fossil Fuel cells are polluting, unless you consider CO2, H2O pollutants.
I think what you are referring to is the potential to create polutants with Fossil fuels by burning, processing, etc... But that isn't neccisarily the case.
This is a good case of oversimplification. HP makes an embarrisingly larger percentage of their money on hardware/tech support rather than one-time OS sales.
Maybe try the True64/HPUX collision route instead.
[refrain...]
It's all about the Debians, baby
Uhh, uh-huh, yeah
Uhh, uh-huh, yeah
It's all about the Debians, baby
It's all about the Debians, baby
It's all about the Debians!
It's all about the Debians!
(Yeah!!)
What y'all wanna do?
Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? with SlackWare?
I'll slap you down wi'the Clue-stick-whacker!
Why's Bruce Perens chillin' at Hewlett Packard?
[refrain...]
Can't he make a post without catching flaque, huh?
Yeah, payin' the bills with my mad programming skills
Doin' text based installs for thrills
I don't need gigabytes of RAM on
My p-one is quicker than an athlon
Installed a T1 line to apt-get my fix's
And saturate the line with 486's
Upgrade my system at least twice a day
I'm strictly plug-and-play, I ain't afraid of Y2K
I'm down with Mandrake, if your in Kindergarten
My security is packaged as 'network-harden'
It's all about the Debians, what?
You gotta be the dumbest newbie in IRC
Don't cut and past to #debian, use #flood, see?
You think software detection is needed?
Think thats how Microsoft is defeated?
You're usin' a p4? Don't make me laugh
Your Gnome still loads up in what, a day and a half?
You should install a distro on ten floppy diskette
Don't say your iso is off the internet
Proprietary install's have no options
We don't need no non-free proprietary factions
Given Stallings credit caus he's due
Y'all should prepend your linux with Gee-En-You!
Don't post to slashdot like a wanabee MEEEPT!
I'll moderate you down if you disagree
I know what I know and what I mean by Free!
[refrain]
</blockquote>
(I'll let someone else work up a second verse, and my appologies to the wierd al)
Isn't that the episode when Kirk plays baseball with the kids from "Galactica 1980" who lived that long becuase of their super hero powers while Dr Who who manipulated the pod in the first place gets posesed by Vince Clortho keymaster of Gozer.
Meanwhile a shot rings out, the maid screams and we tie it all together in chapter two.
From the constant ribbing Kirk gives to Spock, and the way Spock takes it, one would get the impression that Spock generally loses. I don't know of a posting or mentioning anywhere their play stats.
Also, Kirk and Spock have always fought to a draw. There were times that their was an escape before the conclusion (like you mention) or where the conclusion was a contrived part of the plan (Amok Time) but that Kirk seemed to last indefinately against Spock means to me it was a draw.
You have a good point, I remember all to well. Ever since seeing I-man I could never look at him without thinking of him being able to run long distances at full strength, heal from bullet (and lazer) holes as long as he can recharge from sunlight.
Heh, sometimes AC's are good for something. Yeah I remember seeing this before also. I think he has a point, but it may be over milked by now.
Also, Kirk is in many ways a Super Hero. In the rpg he is given a very large luck factor (helping him out in Corbomite Bluffs) and he can beat Spock in chess and is at least equal in physical combat.
But as another person who replied to this before pointed out the most insightful idea IMHO, that Star Trek is about Super Ego, Ego, and ID, etc... and how they interact in different situations. Thats what I liked about it.
I remember in the comic books that Kirk visited one of the previous Enterprises in his early teens when his Dad was in the military, but the federation had been formed then. It was just after being cought stowing away on an ocean ship. Wait, maybe that was in one of the books. Anyway I could see plot potential in this since Kirk was a real punk in his teenage years.
First, even if your proof shows that moral relativism is a weak idea, your final clause is the first place where you even mention 'wrong,'
Not sure what you mean here. Care to help out a little more? I do think I need to alter the axiom's second clause to state that it is "wrong" when applied more universaly. Not in an inductive way mind you where it would be false if it didn't actually work on all in the domain. It would be weak if the requisites to show a workable range->domain relationship were a 'stretch'. I simply don't know how to describe that in a way to withstand mathematical rigor. Its a kind of functional requirement calculus that I simply have no idea how to express. In fact it probably doesn't exist since mathematical expression has no room for such manipulation while in any particularly defined algebra or laws.
Second, your two 'givens'...presuppose your conclusion.
Heh, I was addressing this fact before Slashdot ate my post (honest!) The two givens, have a strength and weakness in that they apply an absolute condition to a very complex action. The strength is that something can be considered good, absolutely even if it isn't absolutely good.
Some might argue that very point is its weakness, but I don't. For example you ask what scale I would measure it out with. On the other hand if there was a scale then it wouldn't be absolute anymore would it? In that way it does presuppose the conclusion, or means there is a more simple way to express it.
The weakness is that the absolution is impracticle in a deterministic sence, as the state of too many peoples lives are involved. (You also pointed this out.) If there was one effect to actions it would be possible, but their are many effects to an action.
In that way I suppose you imply a scale act as the judge, where I would start introducing ways to root out the effects by applying razors like "was this result intended?" or "was this reasonably expected?" etc...
In which case its the heart of the person acting that is more in focus rather than the act itself. With a few more razors along the lines of "was this a detriment to anothers life that didn't accept the sacrifice?" and "is the detriment critical or permanent to requiring more that they can apply to overcome it?" we could come up with a more absolute range of effects to judge the action with.
Again, that involves the manipulations that are not "mathematical".
However the idea is workable, and I think the proof stands on merits other than mathematics. Definately if an absolute criteria is reached, then being relativistic would be by definition weak.
In any case it was a fun armchair excersize that is helping me explore the matter in greater depth. I hope it is for you also.
Slashdot Mirror
During the height of Sukarno's purges, when that 500,000 were killed, the U.S. was ecstatic.
Couldn't read beyond that line, you obviously wrest history more than study it.
A fortune for you...
You suffer from a case of "over estimation" of American influence exaserbated by a need to feel "white guilt".
To explain that conclusion:
I read an article lately explaining that the Taliban are a product of a "lack" of US influence. I'm beginning to believe that is true particularly for the Middle East. The biggest hole in the "Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, etc..." guilt trips has been if America really did set them up as their puppet government then they would have no need to bite the hand that fed them.
The answer is a little Occam related. Its simpler to believe that the US tried to enact change with a minimal direct influence (Bay of Pigs style.) That minimal and indirect influence gave rise for planty of mistakes and backing the wrong people.
It makes sence if you don't want to stir the pot then give some backing to people who already wanted power, and already have a great following in the people (hence easier to set to revolution). Their rise to power they is trecherous and full of intrigue (lies). So why not after obtaining power, turn and sieze even more power by turning against the US? Its the type of people they are, and the type of following they have.
So the problem is the covert indirect involvement in other countries affairs. This is a work of few individuals in the US, and has no baring on what the US does and can do in a completely observable reconstruction.
Every case that the US had direct involvement a good government was set up and the people have lead democratic and relatively free lives.
The cases where they chose the more indirect covert road, they wound up backing people that wanted to take away freedoms (note that is different than saying they put them in power, such is simply an overestimation of American influence and an oversimplification of history). Isn't that the point? They are good if they increase their countries freedoms, represent minority rights, etc... (Like America learned to) and they are bad if they don't. They are bad if they try to invade their neighboring countries.
America is guilty of letting a secret organization have charge the of foreign policy execution. Kind of like the Warren Supreme court (which like the CIA actually did a lot of good things), they are guilty of being a little too pro-active in the wrong branch of government.
Luckily America has a way to fix these problems without bloody revolution. And whipping guilt trips of self pity isn't one of them.
In Afghanistan, if you really want white guilt maybe you believe they are a people who have suffered from a power that usurped authority by making contributions to one particularly corrupt party and president in America.
(Oh maybe you didn't hear that Osama made a $100,000 contribution to the DNC. They gave the money back but only after Clinton let an Saudi company have rights to an Ohio oil field. And only after the US stopped backing the Northern Alliance but continued to supply the Taleban. Its interesting that the lawyer for a Bin Laden terrorist and a imbezler of funds for Bin Laden is Clinton's golfing buddy, Vernon Jordon.)
Like Germany and Japan after wwII? They are allies now, but we didn't need to set up our own Government. We also advised in the setting up governments in Mexico, Panama, Niceragua and the Phillipines. All peaceful automonous entities where the people rule with all the rights and responsibilities of self-determination.
So, trolling your comment might be but it has a correct point mixed with an incorrect point. Yes every country has the right to war with another country when they are attacked. However taking over that country is not allowed or needed.
I'm glad to be a part of a country that is as well known for rebuilding its enemies as the USA.
I think the general point is that you can only deal rationally with people when they want to play the same game. While the measure of rationality is in question, it is a dead on conclusion that the above is true.
Also, I've taken to summarily discounting anyone that has to rely on an "omnipotent and omniscient media" to prove a point. People are misguidable, but not "manipulatable." Why? becuase we all have freedom and intelligence to use it. Anyone who says "you are being manipulated by X" is after X's job.
I think that will be my new sig.
The phrase that comes to mind when I read your comment is...
"decided in a trial by combat."
I would decidedly not agree with those that say that America should sheepishly take 9-11 like a slap on the cheek, turn a few more becuase we have commited sins in the past.
I'm actually very concerned with many groups inside the US that foster the spirit of revolution, that they need to violently arrest power from an organization built with mechanisms to distribute power. And has tolerance for many other mechanisms that allowed for the Civil Rights movement.
Usually with the propagation of lies, or facts of combat measured against a stick of "If they had to do it violently then it was a wrong ideal." I suggest that there is another measure. What did they do with what they achieved so violently?
My problem with "violence is just wrong" is this, many people seeking power to avenge the wrongs of a percieved "big guy" foe. If you feel oppressed or unfairly treated which would be very easy to feel if you have little while your neighbor has a lot, you are likely to be sympathetic to such rhetoric. You may even feel justified in dealing out violence in retaliation to persieved injustice.
However, what do you do when your in power if you topple the big guy? What has the Taleban done with their power? What have many latin american and middle eastern dictators done? What did the US do after their rebellion? What did Hitler do becuase of his percieved injustice brought about by Jews?
In the Sesame street song, we sing "One of these kids is not like the other, one of these just isn't the same." Within 100 years America abolished slavery (even by war), granted womens rights, religious freedom. The freedom has increased (largely as a whole). The others cases the freedoms of the citizens decreased. The aftermath of the wars it fought has seen the rebuilding and befriending the enemy.
Now while my purpose is not to put a white hat on America, it is good to point out that for the most part freedom has been propagated at its hand. The other revolutions have been largely "Animal Farms". For all the Orwellian references, maybe its time to read that book again before striking out against your own government.
In the end, history judges these trials by combat. It is never decided that "violence" in and of itself is black hat, but the purposes achieved and enforced with it.
Note to moderators:
I didn't bring up this topic, I'm just replying to someone else.
right, you have an observer at one point, and an observer at another. The speed of light is still constant across the distance of one light year no matter how fast your traveling in any direction.
I don't see how this works in reletivity.
No matter how fast they are moving away from each other, light still travels the same rate. Therefor the light should arrive in no more than two years.
In other words, if a car is moving away form you at near the speed of light, flashes its turn signal...
There was a book written about this episode (can't remember the title). It was a Ranger battalion caught in a military action underprepared and undersupported. It has been widely studied as a military blunder like a SEAL episode in Panama where they tried to take a airport hanger. Considering how armed a Ranger battalion is, and their training *and* that they were backed in a corner you can expect lots of casualties. The book insinuates the problem was an incompetant commander in chief.
However even in the article, the highest count mentioned was from the Somalian Government at 1000+, with the latest estimates hovering around 500. Another hopeless effort to wrest an article into something it isn't.
This was a US/UN action known and condoned by world diplomats, and was not targeted at civilians. That was also mentioned by the article.
EROS is alive and well, just nearing a 2.0 release that involves a lot of rewriting (kind of like where PleX86 is these days.) It involves many comprimises.
They mentioned something like EROS, called OppcOS.
Not even out of PreAlpha yet, and only two developers.
The plug out of the wall story was actually about KeyKOS although I bet EROS would survive that test also.
I like EROS's idea of having no filesystem. A hard disk is the permanent memory map, and regulary memory is just cache for it. The capability system is a very interesting one also, allowing fine grained security for every part of the system even peripherals (But I suppose OppCOS would have that even though I can find no info on it.)
Don't forget the random memory dumps that MS Word just *adds*. If the user was using win9x then you can read previous revisions, passwords, what they were browsing at the time, etc...
If they are on an NT base, it just pads with 0's.
There have been many who have tried
Herding users with formats and died
So why do you think
another program that stinks
Won't push their own customers aside?
I feel like I'm in a parallel universe here. And in my universe there is no Bork (as a SCJ.)
Also, the Warren court is often critisized for its soliciting cases so it could set essentialy legislate through litigation, which is a large breach of Judicial authority.
They made some ground breaking decisions, and most of them I wouldn't argue with.
The President selects, congress accepts, and they judge according to their own values. Its sane and rational. I've found that there are a large number of people that argue with that process only becuase they didn't get to decide who would be the justice. (I feel that way many times myself.)
Not everything that runs on fossil Fuel cells are polluting, unless you consider CO2, H2O pollutants.
I think what you are referring to is the potential to create polutants with Fossil fuels by burning, processing, etc... But that isn't neccisarily the case.
This is a good case of oversimplification. HP makes an embarrisingly larger percentage of their money on hardware/tech support rather than one-time OS sales.
Maybe try the True64/HPUX collision route instead.
A fortune to my green, pointy eared friend:
I see there is never a lack of contraversy in your life.
Count me too lazy to check on my own, but isn't that DangerMouse's Count Duckula song?
Isn't that the episode when Kirk plays baseball with the kids from "Galactica 1980" who lived that long becuase of their super hero powers while Dr Who who manipulated the pod in the first place gets posesed by Vince Clortho keymaster of Gozer.
Meanwhile a shot rings out, the maid screams and we tie it all together in chapter two.
From the constant ribbing Kirk gives to Spock, and the way Spock takes it, one would get the impression that Spock generally loses. I don't know of a posting or mentioning anywhere their play stats.
Also, Kirk and Spock have always fought to a draw. There were times that their was an escape before the conclusion (like you mention) or where the conclusion was a contrived part of the plan (Amok Time) but that Kirk seemed to last indefinately against Spock means to me it was a draw.
You have a good point, I remember all to well. Ever since seeing I-man I could never look at him without thinking of him being able to run long distances at full strength, heal from bullet (and lazer) holes as long as he can recharge from sunlight.
Heh, sometimes AC's are good for something. Yeah I remember seeing this before also. I think he has a point, but it may be over milked by now.
Also, Kirk is in many ways a Super Hero. In the rpg he is given a very large luck factor (helping him out in Corbomite Bluffs) and he can beat Spock in chess and is at least equal in physical combat.
But as another person who replied to this before pointed out the most insightful idea IMHO, that Star Trek is about Super Ego, Ego, and ID, etc... and how they interact in different situations. Thats what I liked about it.
I remember in the comic books that Kirk visited one of the previous Enterprises in his early teens when his Dad was in the military, but the federation had been formed then. It was just after being cought stowing away on an ocean ship. Wait, maybe that was in one of the books. Anyway I could see plot potential in this since Kirk was a real punk in his teenage years.
First, even if your proof shows that moral relativism is a weak idea, your final clause is the first place where you even mention 'wrong,'
Not sure what you mean here. Care to help out a little more? I do think I need to alter the axiom's second clause to state that it is "wrong" when applied more universaly. Not in an inductive way mind you where it would be false if it didn't actually work on all in the domain. It would be weak if the requisites to show a workable range->domain relationship were a 'stretch'. I simply don't know how to describe that in a way to withstand mathematical rigor. Its a kind of functional requirement calculus that I simply have no idea how to express. In fact it probably doesn't exist since mathematical expression has no room for such manipulation while in any particularly defined algebra or laws.
Second, your two 'givens'...presuppose your conclusion.
Heh, I was addressing this fact before Slashdot ate my post (honest!) The two givens, have a strength and weakness in that they apply an absolute condition to a very complex action. The strength is that something can be considered good, absolutely even if it isn't absolutely good.
Some might argue that very point is its weakness, but I don't. For example you ask what scale I would measure it out with. On the other hand if there was a scale then it wouldn't be absolute anymore would it? In that way it does presuppose the conclusion, or means there is a more simple way to express it.
The weakness is that the absolution is impracticle in a deterministic sence, as the state of too many peoples lives are involved. (You also pointed this out.) If there was one effect to actions it would be possible, but their are many effects to an action.
In that way I suppose you imply a scale act as the judge, where I would start introducing ways to root out the effects by applying razors like "was this result intended?" or "was this reasonably expected?" etc...
In which case its the heart of the person acting that is more in focus rather than the act itself. With a few more razors along the lines of "was this a detriment to anothers life that didn't accept the sacrifice?" and "is the detriment critical or permanent to requiring more that they can apply to overcome it?" we could come up with a more absolute range of effects to judge the action with.
Again, that involves the manipulations that are not "mathematical".
However the idea is workable, and I think the proof stands on merits other than mathematics. Definately if an absolute criteria is reached, then being relativistic would be by definition weak.
In any case it was a fun armchair excersize that is helping me explore the matter in greater depth. I hope it is for you also.