You have a curious set of opinions. How do you maintain the CIA misled the President in light of the significantevidence to the contrary?
I don't ask myself why the Republicans came to power. I know why. They have money, disciplined communications and a coherent strategy. Democrats sadly lack all three of these elements. Not that I care much for Democrats either. I consider both Democrats and Republican as belonging to the same party - neither of which represents my interests.
What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?
Easy question to answer. More money and more power.
Make these people responsible for what they say and do...
The problem with American-style "democracy" is that it is all too easy to control the tyranny of the majority. It is easy to move from tyranny of the majority to simply tyranny. The major problem is not the people in power - they simply exploited the flaws in the system to their advantage. The major problem is that the system can be gamed by profiling voters, media control (did you see that extended ad by the president that he did from the Oval Office a few days ago?) and so forth.
The sad fact is that despite this administration's incompetence on everything from Iraq to Katrina, it is still going to be a tight race. If the Democrats happen to take back a piece of Congress, they might become a minor thorn - but these guys will never see the jail terms they so richly deserve. Further, they have set the precedent where this will happen again a few presidents from now - and it will likely be even worse.
So, let's not pretend that voting this November is anything major shall we? Yes, people should vote and we should do what we can to deal with the immediate problem - but it does not solve the bigger issue.
Let's say I wanted to vote for Cobb of the Green Party and I live in some far off place like New York or Chicago. Cobb isn't on the ballot in those states - in addition to others. Most people that suggest third-party candidates aren't aware of how resticted ballot access is in many states. Further, our system is designed to make these kind of votes as effective as not voting at all.
So, I'm not particulaly concerned about how not voting is construed or not construed by my fellow citizens. What I am concerned about is more actual say in my government - which the current system does not provide. Until I get more say, I'm not voting. It legitimizes the process that is fundamentally broken, and I would rather not - even if I could vote for the candidate of my choice (which I can't).
While you are going about doing this, I take it that you are also careful to explain the differences between the U.S.-style "republican democracy" (an oxymoron) and Athenian Democracy, the latter of which "remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right."
Personally, I think not voting is as legitimate as voting. It is essentially a vote of no-confidence. The non-vote is a vote that says that the choice being offered is no choice at all, and by not voting, I am choosing not to give the process legitimacy by participating. I support not voting when your vote doesn't mean anything - like it currently doesn't within the U.S.
You want to get people involved? They will get involved when they have a real choice and a real say. Work to make that happen and people will line up at the polls. I'd love to see some good Athenian democracy in the U.S. or any kind of democracy. I'll be the first at the polls when it actually means something. Call me when I have a real choice in representatives (example: where was the Peace candidate in 2004? You would have to vote Green or socialist to find a candidate and these candidates weren't even on my state's ballot), proportional representation, and on and on.
Vote now: Red hot poker in the eye or frontal lobotomy? You decide. Some choices aren't choices at all. So, I'll pass on the vote thanks. It's my way of giving the whole set-up the finger (the middle one).
It's not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's about accuracy. The problem is that there is evidence that Republicans have worked to make voting records inaccurate to serve their own ends. However, given the War in Iraq, corruption charges de jure, Administration efforts to absolve itself of the crimes they committed under the War Crimes Act that would be followed-up on if the Congress were to change hands, etc., I think we have every reason to believe that an accurate count of the ballots this November will change the political landscape a bit so all branches of government are not in Republican hands - not a bad thing. I'd rather that no party have complete control over all branches of government and this is a small correction that is long overdue.
All these surveillence programs are not acceptable. Let's use the metaphor of classified information. Assume that we were to treat personal information as classified. You could argue that specific people in government should have the clearance to view this classified information. You could argue that they should be able to view it under strict conditions - just as you must handle classified information and as you suggest in your post.
The question I have is what is the criteria for the need to know? How does this criteria stack up against the process necessary to make this information available (a form of search and seizure to be sure) and the preferences of the individual? In sum, when you sign off on hiring watchmen, who watches the watchmen? We have plenty of historical evidence that collecting information on individuals leads to abuse, miscarriages of justice and an overall decline in the quality of one's government. I'd like to highlight another Reagan-era slogan: Just say no!
I'll make it easy for you. I live in the U.S. The U.S. tracks degree attainment in the Digest of Educational Statistics which has a chart called Bachelor's degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by sex, racial/ethnic group, and major field of study: 2003-04.
I'd argue that there are few IT jobs that require more than a bachelor's degree to do them. According to that chart, there were roughly 60,000 computer and information science degrees awarded in 2003-2004, and 15,000 or 25% of them were awarded to women.
Should the percentage be higher? Yes, but it makes the argument about men dominating IT look a little weak. Add in the fact that many IT jobs don't require a CS degree but require other skills (ability to write documentation, managing clients, managing people in IT, etc.), and you have to wonder why people still think that men do - or even should - dominate this field.
You are making the assumption that CS people are the only people working in IT departments. They aren't. Most often, they are a decided minority. At my last job, the IT people I worked with had degrees in astrophysics, business, finance, and computer science. I'd say less than one in seven had a CS degree.
As for how single gender groups aren't natural, how many examples of single gender groups can you think of that have more than 10 people in them? Now, compare that to how frequently groups tend to have both genders. What's the ratio, and why do you think single gender groups are "natural" in light of it?
If the original question is based on a group of seven people, it seems strange to attribute the problem to gender in a group so small. I can think of dozens of reasons why a new person might not be able to crack into being accepted in a group this size - and none of which are dependent on gender. I also think it is a stretch to call a work group of seven a "department", but I suppose it is all relative.
You are fooling yourself if you think men and women communicate in similar ways and gender doesn't matter. It does matter. Now, you might be skilled at negotiating the differences so they might not be much of an obstacle for you, but it would be a mistake to think that it is a skill many people have and this issue can be discounted.
A department is not 5 people. A department means a major business division. You can quibble about what is "major", but a few guys providing IT to a small organization isn't it. By extension, an individual is not a department.
Further, if you are working for a small organization, you actually have to interact with a lot of people outside your unit, so I don't think you have much of a point to make here.
It's not natural. It also shows a larger problem at the company. IT departments should not be all male. Even if you think that there are fewer technically qualified women for some IT roles - a claim I personally don't agree with, there are plenty of roles in an IT departments where the traditional socialization of women helps them to have a leg up on their male counterparts - I'm thinking specifically of relationship managers, project managers, and so forth.
Men and women are different, and they communicate differently. This is true. However, I would argue that the ability to communicate and work with the opposite gender in a work setting is a key skill - one that is better learned from coworkers than from clients. It is also one where you have to meet them halfway rather than expect them to do all the work.
You thinkyou are the first to think of this? If so, you haven't been paying attention. Remember 1986 when Run D.M.C. had the hit My Adidas? You think no one else got the hint over the last 20 years?
To be sure, plenty of questions remain about YouTube's business. First, the company has yet to turn a profit even though CEO Chad Hurley has said that YouTube is generating significant revenue.
I'd say that puts it around $0. You don't buy a business that isn't making money. It's stupid. Also, don't even talk to me about Murdoch and MySpace. We are talking about the guy that created the problem of placing arbitrary value on the balance sheet as Goodwill to justify his acquisitions. It's a shell game that Murdoch and a few others like Mark Cuban might find a way to time and win - but that a lot of other companies trying to follow in their footsteps that are going to lose big on. I'd even wager that Murdoch is going to get bitten playing this game.
Nowadays, most people just use a site like Rotton Tomatoes. I generally don't see films with less than 80% positive reviews and then I look for a few key critics and what my local independent paper has to say. If a film passes the sniff test from each, 9 times out of 10 I find I like the film and it is worth my time.
Nice straw man. I would say there is a significant difference between the selective breeding of cattle to improve milk production and the injection of bovine growth hormone (BGH) to achieve that end. For example, there is indication that BGH causes health problems in cows and results in more pus in milk. Personally, if I'm drinking milk, I'd rather it came from healthy animals and that the milk has a lower pus count.
Or let's take a more obvious human example: steriods. Steriods are natural. They are important to the functioning of the human body. Still, it doesn't mean it is a good idea to create synthetic varieties and inject them. You certainly would want to know a lot more about the benefits and risks before choosing that course of action, wouldn't you? I know I would.
Now, I think the thrust of the GM foods argument is that eating these foods is the equivalent of putting an unknown substance into your body and not knowing how it will effect it long term. Since GM foods are new, no one knows what the impact will be on people's bodies over the long haul. However, we do know that there are both advantages (disease resistant crops) and disadvantages (GM crops creating super-weeds that require stronger herbicides) to these crops in the short term.
I worry when people just claim something is safe without actually testing it via the scientific method. People said that BGH was completely safe when it came out too. However, saying it doesn't make it so. That's why we test things - especially if it could have major health impact on entire populations.
You could argue that GM foods are necessary to feed the growing population of the world. But that is different than just saying they are safe or that isn't any different from what humans have been doing for centuries. It is different. If we are going to use science to create them, we should also use science to make sure that they are safe.
Of course, we won't have the data to make a determination for decades. In the meantime, please stop pretending the question is settled. Use the good arguments available to you and argue that the benefits outweigh the risks. To argue that you are certain that there are no risks undermines your argument completely and makes people reading what you say question your judgment.
Re:We've defined the wrong enemy...
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
My comments were focused on guerilla warfare, which is also a tactic. There are effective methods for combating this tactic; many of which do not include conventional military forces. The primary difficulty is that the U.S. Army and Marines are exceptional at conventional warfare, but they are not particularly good at fighting guerillas.
I'd love to hear what you find off about my comparison to the Roman Empire. Obviously, there are important and salient differences. But, there are also important and salient similarities as well. I think use of military power and mercenaries is an important similarity. Can you elaborate on why you think it isn't?
I'd also go further and suggest that your comment on it being a war on terror is strange. It's the cover story. You are right to point out that the cover story is false. You are being a little disingenious to assume that the cover story is true while at the same time saying it is false. You indicate that all these reasons were cooked up and how it was all lies - but why? You seem to suggest incompentence, a bit of groupthink, perhaps something else. I'm not sure.
I agree with you that the cover story is false. I also think there is evidence to suggest that it is a short-term money grab and may be an effort by some with a longer view to secure increasingly scarce resources - fresh water, oil, global strategic military positions, etc. Although, I think the people with this view probably are ruled more by ideology than a reasoned approach informed by history - and if this is true, they are making some very stupid mistakes given their objective.
I also think your concluding comments are weak. You cannot blame the American voter for the problems of U.S. government. The typical U.S. citizen is bombarded with disinformation and is being actively misled. They are also given a choice between Gore/Kerry and Bush. That's not much of a choice. That's not to say that people shouldn't demand accountability - and I think they eventually will. However, the blame should be placed squarely on the people making these decisions. I, personally, would like to see some serious discussion of war crimes.
Also, I also wanted to point out that there is a difference between suggesting effective tactics versus supporting flawed strategy. We should never have went to Iraq. In fact, I don't think 9/11 was something that lends itself to a military solution. 9/11 should have started a thoughtful dialogue around why someone would want to do such a thing, and how do you address the conditions that gives rise to people that are willing to give their lives in this way. We instead went for the stupid appeal, "Bring it on!", "Shock and Awe", and other such nonsense.
With that said, you can believe a strategy is deeply flawed yet still recommend effective tactics that can be used to implement it. You can also argue whether this is the right thing to do. However, it can be done, and this is what I was essentially doing in my previous post.
Re:Unfounded Criticism
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
Our troops aren't just fighting for Democracy, they're also fighting for stable economies & developed infrastructures.
You forgot to make oil & money explicit - and which stable economies. This war is not about fighting for Democracy. It's about enabling an American way of life to remain the same when it ought to change. It's also about people in high places making decisions when they have no skin in the game - leaders who never served in the armed forces or in combat situations and whose children aren't on the ground. Further, they have financial interests in companies that are benefiting from this war. If government were a profession like being a lawyer, an accountant and so forth, this would be a clear case of conflict of interest.
Re:Sun Tzu and Machiavelli offer the opposite view
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Sun Tzu wrote military strategies for armies just prior to the consolidation of states during what is now called the Warring States period. Machiavelli wrote in the hopes of a Prince that his strategies would enable a Prince to unify Italy under a single government - despite the fact he preferred a republican form of government. Neither is particularly insightful on guerilla warfare.
You want to know how the U.S. government approaches this kind of war? Try reading the manuals that the CIA, Marine Corps, U.S. Army and others have put together on the topic.
While these are fairly large to summarize, let's just say that comments like these are not unusual:
Because America retains significant advantages in fires and surveillance, a thinking enemy is unlikely to choose to fight U.S. forces in open battle. Opponents who have attempted to do so, such as in Panama in 1989 or Iraq in 1991 and 2003, have been destroyed in conflicts that have been measured in hours or days. Conversely, opponents who have offset America's fire and surveillance advantages by operating close to civilians and news media, such as Somali clans in 1993 and
Iraqi insurgents in 2005, have been more successful in achieving their aims. This does not mean that counterinsurgents do not face open warfare. Insurgents resort to conventional military operations if conditions seem right, in addition to using milder means such as nonviolent political mobilization of people, legal political action, and strikes.
My point is that this is not an issue of fresh troops and a quick in and out strategy. Winning these kinds of wars means living with people, sharing their lives and commitment. It is very much what the original poster was getting at that it requires a completely different frame of reference to "win" a conflict like this one and the military is only one part of many that needs to be brought into play - and they need to think about their jobs differently as these manuals will attest.
While it is possible to use a strategy like the Romans did with their legions where you have quick strike capability (by building roads) that maintains a certain level of discipline throughout an empire, this was used in conjunction with other political and social strategies. Ultimately, it was Rome's dependence on the legions and the use of mercenaries that eventually was the undoing of that empire - a lesson the U.S. would do well to learn.
It all sounds good in theory. Now, put your money where you mouth is....if you think these arguments will work, please join a corporation and make it happen. I've done it, and I can tell you that in the companies I've been involved with, these arguments don't work. Companies don't care about open source, free software or anything else besides making money. Any conversation that loses the central plot of making money and talks about such things as "freedom and independence" means you have lost your audience and your credibility within that company. Fact.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer the term "free software". However, I have been in the business side of a corporate environment and talking about "free speech, not free beer" is not a concept that is easily grasped in that context. Every new meeting, every new person that you come across you will have to explain it again and again - and they still won't get it. If you use "open source" and say it is about being able to see source code, it is actually less of a problem because it sounds like a good thing right from the start whereas you have to deal with the built-in biases that "free" means we don't make any money when we use the term "free software".
You can argue which is more correct, but the ingredient that is missing from your argument is the audience. Semantics matter and you have to use language that makes sense to your audience. I'm sure many people on Slashdot agree with your argument - I among them, but the fact of the matter is that c-level executives in most companies wouldn't even take the time to understand what you are saying. I could convey the term "open source" to them in less than a minute. I would loss them using "free software" and likely wouldn't get a second meeting. It's simply the reality.
That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles explaining what you mean by free. Further, even if you do want to do write these articles, the executives at the companies you are writing will not read them. You even have an interest in the topic, have you read them?
The bottom line is that most business executives do not want to put themselves on the line to come up with a creative product strategy, and even those that do have to deal with stifling organizational inertia. This is partly why iPod and iTunes still dominate the downloadable music market. It is rare for a company to be able to come up with and put into the market a product people want. Most companies simply follow someone else. They wait to see what happens when someone else tries something new and different and if the business model looks viable, they try to jump on the train about 5-10 years down the line - even technology companies.
So, I don't think it is a matter of thinking the Linux community is cheap. It is rationalization in support of complacency. It is a matter of a lack of imagination. The best approach to these people is to ignore them. If you can't ignore them because their software is key to what you do, then you need to demonstrate there is a market for it, get someone to bet their career on it, and then wait 3 years as they try to get "buy-in" to actually do it. Note: You as an individual, don't make a market.
I used to talk with product vendors all the time. I've personally found that the most effective strategy for getting companies to change is to bring these issues up during contract negotiations where you imply that you will take away revenue streams they already have. You make X dollars providing Z software/service, I'd like to see this new product from you and would be willing to spend Y to get it. I know that other companies in my industry would be interested in the same product. I also know your competitors are talking with me about providing this service to me and as part of a larger package where I would move all my money to them.
This is a line of reasoning that most executives at companies can understand. However, you can have this conversation only when you control fairly large sums within another company and where these arguments can be used - not when you are some end user spending less than $5,000 for software once every few years. You also aren't going to get someone to bet their career unless it is a good risk, and in this case, it sounds like you yourself are even uncertain about it.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a curious set of opinions. How do you maintain the CIA misled the President in light of the significant evidence to the contrary?
I don't ask myself why the Republicans came to power. I know why. They have money, disciplined communications and a coherent strategy. Democrats sadly lack all three of these elements. Not that I care much for Democrats either. I consider both Democrats and Republican as belonging to the same party - neither of which represents my interests.
Easy question to answer. More money and more power.
The problem with American-style "democracy" is that it is all too easy to control the tyranny of the majority. It is easy to move from tyranny of the majority to simply tyranny. The major problem is not the people in power - they simply exploited the flaws in the system to their advantage. The major problem is that the system can be gamed by profiling voters, media control (did you see that extended ad by the president that he did from the Oval Office a few days ago?) and so forth.
The sad fact is that despite this administration's incompetence on everything from Iraq to Katrina, it is still going to be a tight race. If the Democrats happen to take back a piece of Congress, they might become a minor thorn - but these guys will never see the jail terms they so richly deserve. Further, they have set the precedent where this will happen again a few presidents from now - and it will likely be even worse.
So, let's not pretend that voting this November is anything major shall we? Yes, people should vote and we should do what we can to deal with the immediate problem - but it does not solve the bigger issue.
Let's say I wanted to vote for Cobb of the Green Party and I live in some far off place like New York or Chicago. Cobb isn't on the ballot in those states - in addition to others. Most people that suggest third-party candidates aren't aware of how resticted ballot access is in many states. Further, our system is designed to make these kind of votes as effective as not voting at all.
So, I'm not particulaly concerned about how not voting is construed or not construed by my fellow citizens. What I am concerned about is more actual say in my government - which the current system does not provide. Until I get more say, I'm not voting. It legitimizes the process that is fundamentally broken, and I would rather not - even if I could vote for the candidate of my choice (which I can't).
While you are going about doing this, I take it that you are also careful to explain the differences between the U.S.-style "republican democracy" (an oxymoron) and Athenian Democracy, the latter of which "remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right."
Personally, I think not voting is as legitimate as voting. It is essentially a vote of no-confidence. The non-vote is a vote that says that the choice being offered is no choice at all, and by not voting, I am choosing not to give the process legitimacy by participating. I support not voting when your vote doesn't mean anything - like it currently doesn't within the U.S.
You want to get people involved? They will get involved when they have a real choice and a real say. Work to make that happen and people will line up at the polls. I'd love to see some good Athenian democracy in the U.S. or any kind of democracy. I'll be the first at the polls when it actually means something. Call me when I have a real choice in representatives (example: where was the Peace candidate in 2004? You would have to vote Green or socialist to find a candidate and these candidates weren't even on my state's ballot), proportional representation, and on and on.
Vote now: Red hot poker in the eye or frontal lobotomy? You decide. Some choices aren't choices at all. So, I'll pass on the vote thanks. It's my way of giving the whole set-up the finger (the middle one).
Remember, Count Von Count counts...One, Two, Three! Everyone else is not a Count counting, so their counting doesn't count like the Count's.
It's not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's about accuracy. The problem is that there is evidence that Republicans have worked to make voting records inaccurate to serve their own ends. However, given the War in Iraq, corruption charges de jure, Administration efforts to absolve itself of the crimes they committed under the War Crimes Act that would be followed-up on if the Congress were to change hands, etc., I think we have every reason to believe that an accurate count of the ballots this November will change the political landscape a bit so all branches of government are not in Republican hands - not a bad thing. I'd rather that no party have complete control over all branches of government and this is a small correction that is long overdue.
All these surveillence programs are not acceptable. Let's use the metaphor of classified information. Assume that we were to treat personal information as classified. You could argue that specific people in government should have the clearance to view this classified information. You could argue that they should be able to view it under strict conditions - just as you must handle classified information and as you suggest in your post.
The question I have is what is the criteria for the need to know? How does this criteria stack up against the process necessary to make this information available (a form of search and seizure to be sure) and the preferences of the individual? In sum, when you sign off on hiring watchmen, who watches the watchmen? We have plenty of historical evidence that collecting information on individuals leads to abuse, miscarriages of justice and an overall decline in the quality of one's government. I'd like to highlight another Reagan-era slogan: Just say no!
I'll make it easy for you. I live in the U.S. The U.S. tracks degree attainment in the Digest of Educational Statistics which has a chart called Bachelor's degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by sex, racial/ethnic group, and major field of study: 2003-04.
I'd argue that there are few IT jobs that require more than a bachelor's degree to do them. According to that chart, there were roughly 60,000 computer and information science degrees awarded in 2003-2004, and 15,000 or 25% of them were awarded to women.
Should the percentage be higher? Yes, but it makes the argument about men dominating IT look a little weak. Add in the fact that many IT jobs don't require a CS degree but require other skills (ability to write documentation, managing clients, managing people in IT, etc.), and you have to wonder why people still think that men do - or even should - dominate this field.You are making the assumption that CS people are the only people working in IT departments. They aren't. Most often, they are a decided minority. At my last job, the IT people I worked with had degrees in astrophysics, business, finance, and computer science. I'd say less than one in seven had a CS degree.
As for how single gender groups aren't natural, how many examples of single gender groups can you think of that have more than 10 people in them? Now, compare that to how frequently groups tend to have both genders. What's the ratio, and why do you think single gender groups are "natural" in light of it?
If the original question is based on a group of seven people, it seems strange to attribute the problem to gender in a group so small. I can think of dozens of reasons why a new person might not be able to crack into being accepted in a group this size - and none of which are dependent on gender. I also think it is a stretch to call a work group of seven a "department", but I suppose it is all relative.
You are fooling yourself if you think men and women communicate in similar ways and gender doesn't matter. It does matter. Now, you might be skilled at negotiating the differences so they might not be much of an obstacle for you, but it would be a mistake to think that it is a skill many people have and this issue can be discounted.
I gather you use a different dictionary than I do.
A department is not 5 people. A department means a major business division. You can quibble about what is "major", but a few guys providing IT to a small organization isn't it. By extension, an individual is not a department.
Further, if you are working for a small organization, you actually have to interact with a lot of people outside your unit, so I don't think you have much of a point to make here.
It's not natural. It also shows a larger problem at the company. IT departments should not be all male. Even if you think that there are fewer technically qualified women for some IT roles - a claim I personally don't agree with, there are plenty of roles in an IT departments where the traditional socialization of women helps them to have a leg up on their male counterparts - I'm thinking specifically of relationship managers, project managers, and so forth.
Men and women are different, and they communicate differently. This is true. However, I would argue that the ability to communicate and work with the opposite gender in a work setting is a key skill - one that is better learned from coworkers than from clients. It is also one where you have to meet them halfway rather than expect them to do all the work.
You think you are the first to think of this? If so, you haven't been paying attention. Remember 1986 when Run D.M.C. had the hit My Adidas? You think no one else got the hint over the last 20 years?
From the article...
I'd say that puts it around $0. You don't buy a business that isn't making money. It's stupid. Also, don't even talk to me about Murdoch and MySpace. We are talking about the guy that created the problem of placing arbitrary value on the balance sheet as Goodwill to justify his acquisitions. It's a shell game that Murdoch and a few others like Mark Cuban might find a way to time and win - but that a lot of other companies trying to follow in their footsteps that are going to lose big on. I'd even wager that Murdoch is going to get bitten playing this game.
Nowadays, most people just use a site like Rotton Tomatoes. I generally don't see films with less than 80% positive reviews and then I look for a few key critics and what my local independent paper has to say. If a film passes the sniff test from each, 9 times out of 10 I find I like the film and it is worth my time.
Nice straw man. I would say there is a significant difference between the selective breeding of cattle to improve milk production and the injection of bovine growth hormone (BGH) to achieve that end. For example, there is indication that BGH causes health problems in cows and results in more pus in milk. Personally, if I'm drinking milk, I'd rather it came from healthy animals and that the milk has a lower pus count.
Or let's take a more obvious human example: steriods. Steriods are natural. They are important to the functioning of the human body. Still, it doesn't mean it is a good idea to create synthetic varieties and inject them. You certainly would want to know a lot more about the benefits and risks before choosing that course of action, wouldn't you? I know I would.
Now, I think the thrust of the GM foods argument is that eating these foods is the equivalent of putting an unknown substance into your body and not knowing how it will effect it long term. Since GM foods are new, no one knows what the impact will be on people's bodies over the long haul. However, we do know that there are both advantages (disease resistant crops) and disadvantages (GM crops creating super-weeds that require stronger herbicides) to these crops in the short term.
I worry when people just claim something is safe without actually testing it via the scientific method. People said that BGH was completely safe when it came out too. However, saying it doesn't make it so. That's why we test things - especially if it could have major health impact on entire populations.
You could argue that GM foods are necessary to feed the growing population of the world. But that is different than just saying they are safe or that isn't any different from what humans have been doing for centuries. It is different. If we are going to use science to create them, we should also use science to make sure that they are safe.
Of course, we won't have the data to make a determination for decades. In the meantime, please stop pretending the question is settled. Use the good arguments available to you and argue that the benefits outweigh the risks. To argue that you are certain that there are no risks undermines your argument completely and makes people reading what you say question your judgment.
My comments were focused on guerilla warfare, which is also a tactic. There are effective methods for combating this tactic; many of which do not include conventional military forces. The primary difficulty is that the U.S. Army and Marines are exceptional at conventional warfare, but they are not particularly good at fighting guerillas.
I'd love to hear what you find off about my comparison to the Roman Empire. Obviously, there are important and salient differences. But, there are also important and salient similarities as well. I think use of military power and mercenaries is an important similarity. Can you elaborate on why you think it isn't?
I'd also go further and suggest that your comment on it being a war on terror is strange. It's the cover story. You are right to point out that the cover story is false. You are being a little disingenious to assume that the cover story is true while at the same time saying it is false. You indicate that all these reasons were cooked up and how it was all lies - but why? You seem to suggest incompentence, a bit of groupthink, perhaps something else. I'm not sure.
I agree with you that the cover story is false. I also think there is evidence to suggest that it is a short-term money grab and may be an effort by some with a longer view to secure increasingly scarce resources - fresh water, oil, global strategic military positions, etc. Although, I think the people with this view probably are ruled more by ideology than a reasoned approach informed by history - and if this is true, they are making some very stupid mistakes given their objective.
I also think your concluding comments are weak. You cannot blame the American voter for the problems of U.S. government. The typical U.S. citizen is bombarded with disinformation and is being actively misled. They are also given a choice between Gore/Kerry and Bush. That's not much of a choice. That's not to say that people shouldn't demand accountability - and I think they eventually will. However, the blame should be placed squarely on the people making these decisions. I, personally, would like to see some serious discussion of war crimes.
Also, I also wanted to point out that there is a difference between suggesting effective tactics versus supporting flawed strategy. We should never have went to Iraq. In fact, I don't think 9/11 was something that lends itself to a military solution. 9/11 should have started a thoughtful dialogue around why someone would want to do such a thing, and how do you address the conditions that gives rise to people that are willing to give their lives in this way. We instead went for the stupid appeal, "Bring it on!", "Shock and Awe", and other such nonsense.
With that said, you can believe a strategy is deeply flawed yet still recommend effective tactics that can be used to implement it. You can also argue whether this is the right thing to do. However, it can be done, and this is what I was essentially doing in my previous post.
You forgot to make oil & money explicit - and which stable economies. This war is not about fighting for Democracy. It's about enabling an American way of life to remain the same when it ought to change. It's also about people in high places making decisions when they have no skin in the game - leaders who never served in the armed forces or in combat situations and whose children aren't on the ground. Further, they have financial interests in companies that are benefiting from this war. If government were a profession like being a lawyer, an accountant and so forth, this would be a clear case of conflict of interest.
Sun Tzu wrote military strategies for armies just prior to the consolidation of states during what is now called the Warring States period. Machiavelli wrote in the hopes of a Prince that his strategies would enable a Prince to unify Italy under a single government - despite the fact he preferred a republican form of government. Neither is particularly insightful on guerilla warfare.
You want to know how the U.S. government approaches this kind of war? Try reading the manuals that the CIA, Marine Corps, U.S. Army and others have put together on the topic.
While these are fairly large to summarize, let's just say that comments like these are not unusual:
My point is that this is not an issue of fresh troops and a quick in and out strategy. Winning these kinds of wars means living with people, sharing their lives and commitment. It is very much what the original poster was getting at that it requires a completely different frame of reference to "win" a conflict like this one and the military is only one part of many that needs to be brought into play - and they need to think about their jobs differently as these manuals will attest.
While it is possible to use a strategy like the Romans did with their legions where you have quick strike capability (by building roads) that maintains a certain level of discipline throughout an empire, this was used in conjunction with other political and social strategies. Ultimately, it was Rome's dependence on the legions and the use of mercenaries that eventually was the undoing of that empire - a lesson the U.S. would do well to learn.
It all sounds good in theory. Now, put your money where you mouth is....if you think these arguments will work, please join a corporation and make it happen. I've done it, and I can tell you that in the companies I've been involved with, these arguments don't work. Companies don't care about open source, free software or anything else besides making money. Any conversation that loses the central plot of making money and talks about such things as "freedom and independence" means you have lost your audience and your credibility within that company. Fact.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer the term "free software". However, I have been in the business side of a corporate environment and talking about "free speech, not free beer" is not a concept that is easily grasped in that context. Every new meeting, every new person that you come across you will have to explain it again and again - and they still won't get it. If you use "open source" and say it is about being able to see source code, it is actually less of a problem because it sounds like a good thing right from the start whereas you have to deal with the built-in biases that "free" means we don't make any money when we use the term "free software".
You can argue which is more correct, but the ingredient that is missing from your argument is the audience. Semantics matter and you have to use language that makes sense to your audience. I'm sure many people on Slashdot agree with your argument - I among them, but the fact of the matter is that c-level executives in most companies wouldn't even take the time to understand what you are saying. I could convey the term "open source" to them in less than a minute. I would loss them using "free software" and likely wouldn't get a second meeting. It's simply the reality.
That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles explaining what you mean by free. Further, even if you do want to do write these articles, the executives at the companies you are writing will not read them. You even have an interest in the topic, have you read them?
The bottom line is that most business executives do not want to put themselves on the line to come up with a creative product strategy, and even those that do have to deal with stifling organizational inertia. This is partly why iPod and iTunes still dominate the downloadable music market. It is rare for a company to be able to come up with and put into the market a product people want. Most companies simply follow someone else. They wait to see what happens when someone else tries something new and different and if the business model looks viable, they try to jump on the train about 5-10 years down the line - even technology companies.
So, I don't think it is a matter of thinking the Linux community is cheap. It is rationalization in support of complacency. It is a matter of a lack of imagination. The best approach to these people is to ignore them. If you can't ignore them because their software is key to what you do, then you need to demonstrate there is a market for it, get someone to bet their career on it, and then wait 3 years as they try to get "buy-in" to actually do it. Note: You as an individual, don't make a market.
I used to talk with product vendors all the time. I've personally found that the most effective strategy for getting companies to change is to bring these issues up during contract negotiations where you imply that you will take away revenue streams they already have. You make X dollars providing Z software/service, I'd like to see this new product from you and would be willing to spend Y to get it. I know that other companies in my industry would be interested in the same product. I also know your competitors are talking with me about providing this service to me and as part of a larger package where I would move all my money to them.
This is a line of reasoning that most executives at companies can understand. However, you can have this conversation only when you control fairly large sums within another company and where these arguments can be used - not when you are some end user spending less than $5,000 for software once every few years. You also aren't going to get someone to bet their career unless it is a good risk, and in this case, it sounds like you yourself are even uncertain about it.