This almost exactly mirrors my career.
I faced the same dilemma as relliker about 4 years ago (turned 40). I didn't want to go into straight management because (a) I neither am good at nor enjoy the administrative minutiae of managing people, and (b) I was never a good arse kisser.
However, I felt that my brain's ability to grasp and be effective with every detail of new tech was diminishing. So I transitioned into a software architect role which basically involves doing the tech stuff at a slightly higher level (still designing, in fact more responsibility for the broad design, but less implementation level detail).
I've since become an integration architect and am six months away from completing my Masters in Enterprise Architecture. I get to avoid the shit parts of management while (starting to) deal with the strategic aspects of IT use in the company.
Can the program tell the difference between a "what a wonderful world" smile and a "if I get told to smile any harder I'm going to disembowel my next customer" smile?
You're quite literally correct of course. I was reflecting a more colloquial phrasing. I guess what I was trying to get at is that when faced with multiple alternative explanations for something, Occam's Razor is a good heuristic for picking one. Scientists sometimes employ Occam's Razor for selecting the simpler among competing but otherwise equivalent theories that match existing empirical evidence.
I tend to use it as a method of weighting scenarios. We live in a time when we don't "directly" know a great many things. We take very many things on faith - faith in others' expertise. When the "experts" or "leaders" cannot agree and the field is such that becoming personally aware of the mass of empirical evidence is not necessarily feasible, then Occam's Razor can be a useful heuristic for assigning likelihood.
Of course, the assumption behind Occam's Razor is that the universe doesn't prefer overly complex solutions. You could argue that there is a basis in reality to this - where our knowledge is sure, that seems to be what is reflected.
You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!
Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job. Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:
Before you get flamed to death by some idiot, you've got realise that compilers translate a higher-level language into a lower-level one, typically into machine instructions (or in the case of Java and.NET, virtual machine instructions), turning source code into executable form. Interpreters on the other hand, execute each statement of the language directly (effectively forming a virtual machine for that language).
Naive compiler translations can be functionally correct but sub-optimal with respect to runtime performance, memory/disk footprint etc. Compiler optimisation is the effort to make this translation as optimal as possible with respect to some variable(s) e.g. performance, size
What you are thinking of sound like source code optimization. There are various interpretations of this but to my mind, this means a combination of optimal algorithm selection and optimal algorithm implementation. Note that complex algorithms can be decomposed into smaller common algorithms e.g. a sort routine may be part of some higher-level algorithm, the sort-routine may be optimised independently of the higher-level routine.
"They had your social security information, credit information, where you lived, employment history, fingerprint information," said Clear customer David Maynor, who is chief technical officer with Errata Security in Atlanta. "They should be the only ones who have access to that information."
and
"Other providers, who may now be interested in purchasing Clear's assets, include Flo and Preferred Traveler. "
Given the capability by companies to effectively hide their interested principals through convoluted international structures I wonder how hard it would be for a front-company to buy this info on behalf of criminal organisations, terrorist groups or other nation states.
No, but I was certainly thinking of him when I wrote that. Many consider him a kook but he's been spot-on about a great many things. His positions are typically very well thought out. People who have formed an opinion of him through hearsay really should do themselves a favour and read some of his essays.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ - search for "Stallman" on that page for links to several essays.
I think people keep mistaking "free" for "Freedom". "free" quite literally means no price. "Freedom" means having the latitude to do certain things you want to do.
If I understand the nature of something that I accept for "free" then I have consciously made a decision to spend whatever personal effort is required to extract some value out of this "free" thing. Does my effort make the thing less "free"? Presumably, I know what I'm doing and still think its worth the price of my personal effort. This decision could be made for numerous reasons: - I'm ignorant and naively think that "free" means no personal effort is required - weighing the "personal effort" cost vs the cost of the non-free alternative - weighing the "personal effort" cost vs future/indirect/other returns - personal satisfaction/growth/principles/other emotional driver Setting aside any possible naivete, the other reasons in my personal equation imply that despite a personal cost I still think "free" is worth it. This is irrespective of which side of the "free" offer I am on (provider/recipient).
"Freedom" is similar to "free" in that most people accept that there is an embedded cost somewhere that they are prepared to pay e.g. my freedom to flail my fists ends at the tip of your nose. My freedom to spout on about freedom is codependent on your freedom to spout on about subjects I may find personally abhorrent. Even with those "costs", I still think "Freedom" is worth it.
Your MBA friend is spot on - these are basic ideas. And the Times should be castigated for referring to these guys as "two of the world's leading thinkers".
Speaking from a perspective of 23 years experience in IT I can honestly say that the single biggest impediment to the successful delivery of any IT project is the failure of management to understand the nature of what it is we do. I am currently working as an Integration Architect in a rather large IT programme within which numerous separate-but-connected projects are being run. I find myself having to explain again and again to the PHB's what re-use means. Why we're concerned with maintainability. Why having a sensible data dictionary is good. Part of the problem is the way the individual projects are being run means that there is no value placed on architectural considerations which have a financial impact (cost saving) over the long term. PM's are focused on their own deliverables/budgets/deadlines and in our specific instance, the team responsible for "integration" does not have any clout - we work by cajoling, wheedling, nagging and stealth. If I had a buck for every time I had to present a "SDLC for dummies" powerpoint to a bunch of PM's and middle-management...
Disregarding the merits or not of this specific case, I wonder how different people's attitude would be if the RIAA had taken all the money they've spent on investigation's, lawyers, lobbyists etc, and instead of suing people offered an "amnesty" where they subsidised subscriptions/purchases to DRM-free music to the first X (invent some very large number > 1M) of people. They could market this with the labels and come out looking like good guys.
Wow! One of the most eloquent Slashdot posts in defense of the Republic that I've read in a while.
However one of your assumptions is fading fast. When you state: > This country is for people who love freedom. Who are willing to risk their lives for it. This assumes that: (a) people understand "freedom" as the founding fathers understood it and not merely freedom to consume whatever the talking heads tell us. (b) people are actually willing to risk their lives for it.
Unfortunately, I think that the transformation of the enlightened Republic to the Idiocracy portrayed in film is well underway. In addition I believe that even those that still value true freedom are increasingly less willing to risk their lives for it. Hell, most aren't even willing to risk their comfort for it. A society that is too comfortable with itself is perfectly setup for golden handcuffs.
Ironically, in Iran right now, people actually ARE putting themselves in harms way to protest apparent fraud on the part of the executive.
I sympathise 100% with what you've written but sadly I'm convinced that its almost too late for the republic to be saved without "refreshing the tree of liberty". The sad part is that a lot of people would read your post and wonder why you're over-reacting. They think of "Democracy" and "Freedom" as mere trademarks associated with the US of A. Meanwhile, every pillar of the constitution is under attack and while some are noticing, very few are standing up.
Wake up people! Look at what's happening in Iran - the lesson is this: no matter how powerless you think you are, governments of all persuasions fear nothing more than a populace aroused to anger. To quote Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
> The bottom line here is that nuclear weapon proliferation is an extremely complex and difficult subject, and (not to make fun of you) unlikely to be solved with quick four-point plans you can list in a Slashdot post.
Fair enough - I did forget the "Profit!" step (although as you point out it had plenty of ????). The fact that we can't solve the world's problems in a single Slashdot post shouldn't discourage us from trying:-)
Fair enough. The whole "+5,Funny" thing was sarcastic. However, if I do manage to refute every point, then doesn't that indicate something? Like perhaps the parent was off-track?
I guess what I find disheartening and what I'm trying to say is, cut out the "black and white" view of the world. This isn't a comic book. States aren't heroes or villains. Every state is pursuing what their leaders' believe is their own national interest. Get past the rhetoric. Look at the actual actions of each of the actors. There is far less difference than most people think (although those differences sometimes do... well... make a difference).
Good question (and thanks for the thoughtful post).
I think the best way to "deal" with Iran and future states that may be considering nuclear weapons (as opposed to nuclear power) is as follows:
1. Get China to bring NK to heel. A transition from the cult-of-Kim to a dictatorship-by-committee (like in Myanmar) maybe just enough of a change to make the regime's external stance less volatile. How much leverage we have with China to force this is questionable. The alternative that China faces is surgical strikes on their neighbour, which they definitely do NOT want. This must happen before NK get delivery capability.
2. At the same time, get the 1st world nuclear powers to establish a "civilian nuclear power" board (perhaps under IAEA aegis) to guarantee delivery of tech, advice, construction and low-interest loans for proliferation-resistant nuclear power plants. No country would be refused. This could even be linked to any global climate-change agreements.
3. Get serious with nuclear disarmament. Western powers just cannot claim the moral high-ground while adding to their stockpiles.
4. Raise the stakes with respect to sanctions for proliferation. Enable automatic sanctions if a country refuses 2 (above) and begins a weapons capable nuclear power cycle.
All of these must be done together as part of a package - a kind of global, nuclear "new deal".
> And by the way, comrade, you seem to be forgetting about this whole other theater of war in the Pacific...
"Comrade", I am not forgetting at all. Not at all. Most of the planet is familiar with America's actions for good or ill. Americans however seem to be (on the whole) remarkably ignorant of both the rest of the world's good actions and their own country's ill actions.
And what's with the automatic "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude? You lot are so bloody fond of pointing out what a beacon you are and how shabby everyone else is but seem to have a bit of a glass jaw when criticism is pointed at you. Do not equate criticism with communism or "islamo-fascism". For the record, I am probably the world's greatest fan of the American Republic and your early history is one of my favourite subjects.
The following is reproduced from the Stratfor website (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090613_iran_text_mousavi_letter). ----------
Editor's Note: The text that follows is a translation of a letter by Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi on June 13, reported by TehranBureau.com. STRATFOR cannot confirm the authenticity of the letter.
"The reported results of the 10th Iranian presidential election are appalling. The people who witnessed the mixture of votes in long lineups know who they have voted for and observe the wizardry of I.R.I.B. (state-run TV and radio) and election officials. Now more than ever before they want to know how and by which officials this game plan has been designed. I object fully to the current procedures and obvious and abundant deviations from law on the day of election and alert people to not surrender to this dangerous plot. Dishonesty and corruption of officials as we have seen will only result in weakening the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran and empowers lies and dictatorships.
"I am obliged, due to my religious and national duties, to expose this dangerous plot and to explain its devastating effects on the future of Iran. I am concerned that the continuation of the current situation will transform all key members of this regime into fabulists in confrontation with the nation and seriously jeopardize them in this world and the next.
"I advise all officials to halt this agenda at once before it is too late, return to the rule of law and protect the nation's vote and know that deviation from law renders them illegitimate. They are aware better than anyone else that this country has been through a grand Islamic revolution and the least message of this revolution is that our nation is alert and will oppose anyone who aims to seize the power against the law.
"I use this chance to honor the emotions of the nation of Iran and remind them that Iran, this sacred being, belongs to them and not to the fraudulent. It is you who should stay alert. The traitors to the nation's vote have no fear if this house of Persians burns in flames. We will continue with our green wave of rationality that is inspired by our religious learnings and our love for prophet Mohammad and will confront the rampage of lies that has appeared and marked the image of our nation. However we will not allow our movement to become blind one.
"I thank every citizen who took part in spreading this green message by becoming a campaigner and all official and self organized campaigns, I insist that their presence is essential until we achieve results deserving of our country."
Note to modders: this post should obviously be +5, FUNNY not +5, Insightful. It is clearly sarcasm.
Oh, you mean its not sarcasm?
> Given this country brought an end to both World Wars and prevented the 3rd
You mean like in the 2nd world war where the Soviets crushed 3/4 of the Wermacht on the Eastern front before a single boat landed on Normandy's beaches?
> We're not malicious about it.
See modders? +5,Funny right there.
> If we were we would taken all the oil fields for ourselves. Which we could have done.
And in fact have done: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
> You forget history, my friend; among all the "dictators" of history, the USA is a teddy bear.
Among all the dictators of modern history, the US has installed or propped up at least half (with the Soviets accounting for most of the rest).
> Stop fussing, you have no idea how horrible life can be under a REAL superpower that isn't afraid to rampantly abuse their authority.
No my (clearly) American friend. It is YOU who have no idea what that life is like. The majority of the rest of the world is very well aware of what the US fist inside the IMF glove really feels like.
> In the absence of an external interfering force (e. g., the army of the Soviet Union), the fate of a nation is determined by its people
Does the CIA overthrow of democratically elected Mosadeq in '53 count? Does the US sponsoring of Iraq in the 8 year long Iran-Iraq war (costing close to 800K deaths and $0.5 trillion economic loss) count? Does the US imposition of a classically cruel, despot count?
> If the democracy advocates attempt to establish a genuine democracy in Iran, violence will occur. Why? A large percentage of the population supports the brutal government and will kill the democracy advocates.
Firstly, all reports indicate massive election fraud (incumbent winning cities, opposition losing their home regions etc). This would tend to indicate that a large percentage of the population do NOT support the government. THIS is why violence will occur - because the government is existentially afraid.
> Let us not merely condemn the Iranian government. We must condemn Iranian culture. Its product is the authoritarian state.
What about the large number of states where there is a causal relationship of authoritarian governments to US intervention and support? Does this imply authoritarianism is the product of American culture too?
> We should not intervene in the current crisis in Iran.
Agreed. Furthermore, we should not intervene in ANYBODY else's crisis.
> If the overwhelming majority of Iranians (like the overwhelming majority of Poles) truly support democracy, human rights, and peace with Israel, then a liberal Western democracy will arise -- without any violence.
Thank you for revealing your true colours. Although your last part "without any violence" is wrong. There aren't too many countries where real democracy (not thinly veiled oligarchy - which is what we predominantly see in Eastern Europe) has arisen without any violence.
> The Iranians created this horrible society.
A. Horrible to whom? B. See my very first point above.
> It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons. We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.
Spoken like a true Likudnik. What happened to "We should not intervene?" Your (I'm assuming your American here) interventions over the last X years (go back as far as you like) have worked out wonderfully so far. Why stop now? Although I'd love to see you "intervene" and destroy North Korea's REAL nukes before you attempt to destroy Iran's virtual nukes. Consistency would make such a lovely change to hypocrisy.
> Note that, 40 years ago, Vietnam suffered a worse fate (than the Iranians) at the hands of the Americans.
Agreed.
> Yet, the Vietnamese do not channel their energies into seeking revenge (by, e. g., building a nuclear bomb) against the West.
Dude. Over 4 MILLION Vietnamese and Cambodians died as a result of that war. They have been channeling their energies into just surviving and they are still recovering from the aftermath of that foreign imposed disaster.
> Rather, the Vietnamese are diligently modernizing their society.
If by modernising their society you mean they are still rebuilding what was so abjectly destroyed then yes, I agree. They are very diligent in that.
> They will reach 1st-world status long before the Iranians.
Who can tell?
> Cultures are different. Vietnamese culture and Iranian culture are different.
Agreed.
> The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
See every point I've made above.
The saddest part about your post is that it was modded +5,Insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
This almost exactly mirrors my career.
I faced the same dilemma as relliker about 4 years ago (turned 40). I didn't want to go into straight management because (a) I neither am good at nor enjoy the administrative minutiae of managing people, and (b) I was never a good arse kisser.
However, I felt that my brain's ability to grasp and be effective with every detail of new tech was diminishing. So I transitioned into a software architect role which basically involves doing the tech stuff at a slightly higher level (still designing, in fact more responsibility for the broad design, but less implementation level detail).
I've since become an integration architect and am six months away from completing my Masters in Enterprise Architecture. I get to avoid the shit parts of management while (starting to) deal with the strategic aspects of IT use in the company.
Aural sex? I like the sound of that!
*boom* *tish*
Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
That would be MC Double Dong "DP".
Can the program tell the difference between a "what a wonderful world" smile and a "if I get told to smile any harder I'm going to disembowel my next customer" smile?
You're quite literally correct of course. I was reflecting a more colloquial phrasing. I guess what I was trying to get at is that when faced with multiple alternative explanations for something, Occam's Razor is a good heuristic for picking one. Scientists sometimes employ Occam's Razor for selecting the simpler among competing but otherwise equivalent theories that match existing empirical evidence.
I tend to use it as a method of weighting scenarios. We live in a time when we don't "directly" know a great many things. We take very many things on faith - faith in others' expertise. When the "experts" or "leaders" cannot agree and the field is such that becoming personally aware of the mass of empirical evidence is not necessarily feasible, then Occam's Razor can be a useful heuristic for assigning likelihood.
Of course, the assumption behind Occam's Razor is that the universe doesn't prefer overly complex solutions. You could argue that there is a basis in reality to this - where our knowledge is sure, that seems to be what is reflected.
There's a great discussion of Occam's Razor here:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process?
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!
Well, OK. I'm not that shocked. In fact I'm pretty sure this has happened before.
Exxon is pretty good at this sort of thing:-
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding
And groups like the Heartland Institute ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute ) are whoring for so many masters I fully expect to see them expand into the "intellectual property" debate any day now.
Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job.
Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:
"Who benefits" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono
"You can't get something for nothing" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"The simpler theory is often correct" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor
( be careful with that last one - it can be a slippery sucker)
Before you get flamed to death by some idiot, you've got realise that compilers translate a higher-level language into a lower-level one, typically into machine instructions (or in the case of Java and .NET, virtual machine instructions), turning source code into executable form. Interpreters on the other hand, execute each statement of the language directly (effectively forming a virtual machine for that language).
Naive compiler translations can be functionally correct but sub-optimal with respect to runtime performance, memory/disk footprint etc. Compiler optimisation is the effort to make this translation as optimal as possible with respect to some variable(s) e.g. performance, size
What you are thinking of sound like source code optimization. There are various interpretations of this but to my mind, this means a combination of optimal algorithm selection and optimal algorithm implementation. Note that complex algorithms can be decomposed into smaller common algorithms e.g. a sort routine may be part of some higher-level algorithm, the sort-routine may be optimised independently of the higher-level routine.
Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler_optimization
According to the Computerworld article:
"They had your social security information, credit information, where you lived, employment history, fingerprint information," said Clear customer David Maynor, who is chief technical officer with Errata Security in Atlanta. "They should be the only ones who have access to that information."
and
"Other providers, who may now be interested in purchasing Clear's assets, include Flo and Preferred Traveler. "
Given the capability by companies to effectively hide their interested principals through convoluted international structures I wonder how hard it would be for a front-company to buy this info on behalf of criminal organisations, terrorist groups or other nation states.
:-)
No, but I was certainly thinking of him when I wrote that. Many consider him a kook but he's been spot-on about a great many things. His positions are typically very well thought out. People who have formed an opinion of him through hearsay really should do themselves a favour and read some of his essays.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
- search for "Stallman" on that page for links to several essays.
I think people keep mistaking "free" for "Freedom". "free" quite literally means no price. "Freedom" means having the latitude to do certain things you want to do.
If I understand the nature of something that I accept for "free" then I have consciously made a decision to spend whatever personal effort is required to extract some value out of this "free" thing. Does my effort make the thing less "free"? Presumably, I know what I'm doing and still think its worth the price of my personal effort. This decision could be made for numerous reasons:
- I'm ignorant and naively think that "free" means no personal effort is required
- weighing the "personal effort" cost vs the cost of the non-free alternative
- weighing the "personal effort" cost vs future/indirect/other returns
- personal satisfaction/growth/principles/other emotional driver
Setting aside any possible naivete, the other reasons in my personal equation imply that despite a personal cost I still think "free" is worth it. This is irrespective of which side of the "free" offer I am on (provider/recipient).
"Freedom" is similar to "free" in that most people accept that there is an embedded cost somewhere that they are prepared to pay e.g. my freedom to flail my fists ends at the tip of your nose. My freedom to spout on about freedom is codependent on your freedom to spout on about subjects I may find personally abhorrent. Even with those "costs", I still think "Freedom" is worth it.
Your MBA friend is spot on - these are basic ideas. And the Times should be castigated for referring to these guys as "two of the world's leading thinkers".
Speaking from a perspective of 23 years experience in IT I can honestly say that the single biggest impediment to the successful delivery of any IT project is the failure of management to understand the nature of what it is we do.
I am currently working as an Integration Architect in a rather large IT programme within which numerous separate-but-connected projects are being run. I find myself having to explain again and again to the PHB's what re-use means. Why we're concerned with maintainability. Why having a sensible data dictionary is good. Part of the problem is the way the individual projects are being run means that there is no value placed on architectural considerations which have a financial impact (cost saving) over the long term. PM's are focused on their own deliverables/budgets/deadlines and in our specific instance, the team responsible for "integration" does not have any clout - we work by cajoling, wheedling, nagging and stealth. If I had a buck for every time I had to present a "SDLC for dummies" powerpoint to a bunch of PM's and middle-management...
> However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden
In case you didn't realise just how bad that sounds I've taken the liberty of rephrasing it for you:
"However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your vagina or anus, that's where everything starts getting hidden."
You see how people might have a problem with that? "School-issue speculums" just doesn't have a comforting ring about it.
This is why successful leaders tend to prefer advice from their "right hand man". Who listens to their "left hand man"? No one - that's who!
Remind me again, what are we supposed to do with 1 ton of liquid CO2 per day that's captured by each one of these things?
Disregarding the merits or not of this specific case, I wonder how different people's attitude would be if the RIAA had taken all the money they've spent on investigation's, lawyers, lobbyists etc, and instead of suing people offered an "amnesty" where they subsidised subscriptions/purchases to DRM-free music to the first X (invent some very large number > 1M) of people. They could market this with the labels and come out looking like good guys.
Just a thought.
> SMASH IMPERIALISM WITH WORKERS REVOLUTION!
> Workers to power!
OK, I'll bite. "Workers to power!" And then what?
It's been tried before. Didn't work out too well as I recall.
Wow! One of the most eloquent Slashdot posts in defense of the Republic that I've read in a while.
However one of your assumptions is fading fast. When you state:
> This country is for people who love freedom. Who are willing to risk their lives for it.
This assumes that:
(a) people understand "freedom" as the founding fathers understood it and not merely freedom to consume whatever the talking heads tell us.
(b) people are actually willing to risk their lives for it.
Unfortunately, I think that the transformation of the enlightened Republic to the Idiocracy portrayed in film is well underway. In addition I believe that even those that still value true freedom are increasingly less willing to risk their lives for it. Hell, most aren't even willing to risk their comfort for it. A society that is too comfortable with itself is perfectly setup for golden handcuffs.
Ironically, in Iran right now, people actually ARE putting themselves in harms way to protest apparent fraud on the part of the executive.
I sympathise 100% with what you've written but sadly I'm convinced that its almost too late for the republic to be saved without "refreshing the tree of liberty". The sad part is that a lot of people would read your post and wonder why you're over-reacting. They think of "Democracy" and "Freedom" as mere trademarks associated with the US of A. Meanwhile, every pillar of the constitution is under attack and while some are noticing, very few are standing up.
Wake up people! Look at what's happening in Iran - the lesson is this: no matter how powerless you think you are, governments of all persuasions fear nothing more than a populace aroused to anger. To quote Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
> The bottom line here is that nuclear weapon proliferation is an extremely complex and difficult subject, and (not to make fun of you) unlikely to be solved with quick four-point plans you can list in a Slashdot post.
:-)
Fair enough - I did forget the "Profit!" step (although as you point out it had plenty of ????). The fact that we can't solve the world's problems in a single Slashdot post shouldn't discourage us from trying
Fair enough. The whole "+5,Funny" thing was sarcastic.
... well... make a difference).
However, if I do manage to refute every point, then doesn't that indicate something? Like perhaps the parent was off-track?
I guess what I find disheartening and what I'm trying to say is, cut out the "black and white" view of the world. This isn't a comic book. States aren't heroes or villains. Every state is pursuing what their leaders' believe is their own national interest. Get past the rhetoric. Look at the actual actions of each of the actors. There is far less difference than most people think (although those differences sometimes do
Good question (and thanks for the thoughtful post).
I think the best way to "deal" with Iran and future states that may be considering nuclear weapons (as opposed to nuclear power) is as follows:
1. Get China to bring NK to heel. A transition from the cult-of-Kim to a dictatorship-by-committee (like in Myanmar) maybe just enough of a change to make the regime's external stance less volatile. How much leverage we have with China to force this is questionable. The alternative that China faces is surgical strikes on their neighbour, which they definitely do NOT want. This must happen before NK get delivery capability.
2. At the same time, get the 1st world nuclear powers to establish a "civilian nuclear power" board (perhaps under IAEA aegis) to guarantee delivery of tech, advice, construction and low-interest loans for proliferation-resistant nuclear power plants. No country would be refused. This could even be linked to any global climate-change agreements.
3. Get serious with nuclear disarmament. Western powers just cannot claim the moral high-ground while adding to their stockpiles.
4. Raise the stakes with respect to sanctions for proliferation. Enable automatic sanctions if a country refuses 2 (above) and begins a weapons capable nuclear power cycle.
All of these must be done together as part of a package - a kind of global, nuclear "new deal".
> And compare modern day Japan to modern day Mongolia if you want to compare treatments of once-puppet governments
Fair enough. Mongolia - economic backwater for years. Japan - artificially propping up the US economy for years.
> And by the way, comrade, you seem to be forgetting about this whole other theater of war in the Pacific...
"Comrade", I am not forgetting at all. Not at all. Most of the planet is familiar with America's actions for good or ill. Americans however seem to be (on the whole) remarkably ignorant of both the rest of the world's good actions and their own country's ill actions.
And what's with the automatic "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude? You lot are so bloody fond of pointing out what a beacon you are and how shabby everyone else is but seem to have a bit of a glass jaw when criticism is pointed at you. Do not equate criticism with communism or "islamo-fascism". For the record, I am probably the world's greatest fan of the American Republic and your early history is one of my favourite subjects.
The following is reproduced from the Stratfor website (http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090613_iran_text_mousavi_letter).
----------
Editor's Note: The text that follows is a translation of a letter by Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi on June 13, reported by TehranBureau.com. STRATFOR cannot confirm the authenticity of the letter.
"The reported results of the 10th Iranian presidential election are appalling. The people who witnessed the mixture of votes in long lineups know who they have voted for and observe the wizardry of I.R.I.B. (state-run TV and radio) and election officials. Now more than ever before they want to know how and by which officials this game plan has been designed. I object fully to the current procedures and obvious and abundant deviations from law on the day of election and alert people to not surrender to this dangerous plot. Dishonesty and corruption of officials as we have seen will only result in weakening the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran and empowers lies and dictatorships.
"I am obliged, due to my religious and national duties, to expose this dangerous plot and to explain its devastating effects on the future of Iran. I am concerned that the continuation of the current situation will transform all key members of this regime into fabulists in confrontation with the nation and seriously jeopardize them in this world and the next.
"I advise all officials to halt this agenda at once before it is too late, return to the rule of law and protect the nation's vote and know that deviation from law renders them illegitimate. They are aware better than anyone else that this country has been through a grand Islamic revolution and the least message of this revolution is that our nation is alert and will oppose anyone who aims to seize the power against the law.
"I use this chance to honor the emotions of the nation of Iran and remind them that Iran, this sacred being, belongs to them and not to the fraudulent. It is you who should stay alert. The traitors to the nation's vote have no fear if this house of Persians burns in flames. We will continue with our green wave of rationality that is inspired by our religious learnings and our love for prophet Mohammad and will confront the rampage of lies that has appeared and marked the image of our nation. However we will not allow our movement to become blind one.
"I thank every citizen who took part in spreading this green message by becoming a campaigner and all official and self organized campaigns, I insist that their presence is essential until we achieve results deserving of our country."
Note to modders: this post should obviously be +5, FUNNY not +5, Insightful. It is clearly sarcasm.
Oh, you mean its not sarcasm?
> Given this country brought an end to both World Wars and prevented the 3rd
You mean like in the 2nd world war where the Soviets crushed 3/4 of the Wermacht on the Eastern front before a single boat landed on Normandy's beaches?
> We're not malicious about it.
See modders? +5,Funny right there.
> If we were we would taken all the oil fields for ourselves. Which we could have done.
And in fact have done: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
> You forget history, my friend; among all the "dictators" of history, the USA is a teddy bear.
Among all the dictators of modern history, the US has installed or propped up at least half (with the Soviets accounting for most of the rest).
> Stop fussing, you have no idea how horrible life can be under a REAL superpower that isn't afraid to rampantly abuse their authority.
No my (clearly) American friend. It is YOU who have no idea what that life is like. The majority of the rest of the world is very well aware of what the US fist inside the IMF glove really feels like.
> In the absence of an external interfering force (e. g., the army of the Soviet Union), the fate of a nation is determined by its people
Does the CIA overthrow of democratically elected Mosadeq in '53 count? Does the US sponsoring of Iraq in the 8 year long Iran-Iraq war (costing close to 800K deaths and $0.5 trillion economic loss) count? Does the US imposition of a classically cruel, despot count?
> If the democracy advocates attempt to establish a genuine democracy in Iran, violence will occur. Why? A large percentage of the population supports the brutal government and will kill the democracy advocates.
Firstly, all reports indicate massive election fraud (incumbent winning cities, opposition losing their home regions etc). This would tend to indicate that a large percentage of the population do NOT support the government. THIS is why violence will occur - because the government is existentially afraid.
> Let us not merely condemn the Iranian government. We must condemn Iranian culture. Its product is the authoritarian state.
What about the large number of states where there is a causal relationship of authoritarian governments to US intervention and support? Does this imply authoritarianism is the product of American culture too?
> We should not intervene in the current crisis in Iran.
Agreed. Furthermore, we should not intervene in ANYBODY else's crisis.
> If the overwhelming majority of Iranians (like the overwhelming majority of Poles) truly support democracy, human rights, and peace with Israel, then a liberal Western democracy will arise -- without any violence.
Thank you for revealing your true colours. Although your last part "without any violence" is wrong. There aren't too many countries where real democracy (not thinly veiled oligarchy - which is what we predominantly see in Eastern Europe) has arisen without any violence.
> The Iranians created this horrible society.
A. Horrible to whom?
B. See my very first point above.
> It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons. We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.
Spoken like a true Likudnik. What happened to "We should not intervene?" Your (I'm assuming your American here) interventions over the last X years (go back as far as you like) have worked out wonderfully so far. Why stop now? Although I'd love to see you "intervene" and destroy North Korea's REAL nukes before you attempt to destroy Iran's virtual nukes. Consistency would make such a lovely change to hypocrisy.
> Note that, 40 years ago, Vietnam suffered a worse fate (than the Iranians) at the hands of the Americans.
Agreed.
> Yet, the Vietnamese do not channel their energies into seeking revenge (by, e. g., building a nuclear bomb) against the West.
Dude. Over 4 MILLION Vietnamese and Cambodians died as a result of that war. They have been channeling their energies into just surviving and they are still recovering from the aftermath of that foreign imposed disaster.
> Rather, the Vietnamese are diligently modernizing their society.
If by modernising their society you mean they are still rebuilding what was so abjectly destroyed then yes, I agree. They are very diligent in that.
> They will reach 1st-world status long before the Iranians.
Who can tell?
> Cultures are different. Vietnamese culture and Iranian culture are different.
Agreed.
> The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
See every point I've made above.
The saddest part about your post is that it was modded +5,Insightful.