This guy does inadvertently raise a potentially interesting question: from inside your own brain, how can you tell whether you are dead wrong or a persecuted visionary?
Yeah, I think you've got a big piece of it. It seems to me, though, that our policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union *has* been to irritate Russia - they've just finally recovered to the point where they can throw a tantrum about it.
I can't help but feel like every administration from H.W. Bush until now has seriously mismanaged assisting Russia with its transition out of Soviet Communism. There had to be a better way to assist and protect the territorial integrity of the newly sovereign Eastern European nations - or some bargain so that Russia did not feel threatened by the expansion of NATO.
I think the reason for this is simple. North Korea has repeatedly violated agreements with us regarding inspection and dismantling of their nuclear programs, yet we haven't invaded them. Iran likewise has been attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but their government hasn't been toppled. India and Pakistan both developed (and maintain) nuclear weapons, but we've committed to helping India develop further nuclear energy technology, and Pakistan is considered a key regional ally. Israel occupies land in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, but we haven't invaded them to enforce those resolutions.
I could go through and try to explain all of this - I think I could even do a fair job of it, citing reasons historical, diplomatic, political, economic, etc. But that would be complex. And people don't like complex. People like simple. It's far easier to look at the discrepancy and say the war was about oil.
Personally? I'm not sure even President Bush fully understands why the war started.
Yeah, at least when we invaded Mexico and stole half their country, we had enough conscience to pay them something for the territory.
Would have been better not to bow to jingoism, but making someone else pay you for the costs of invading their country? That's even more wrong.
Interesting thoughts - I don't know that "every PC needs a graphics card" so much as the marketing needs to distinguish more clearly between gaming PCs and web browser/word processor/etc. PCs. If you don't want to play games, you shouldn't have to buy the hardware for it, but if you do want to, you should be able to know what you're getting without doing research. It can be frustrating to try to find a computer to do what you want these days.
One of my earliest memories is of playing many, many classic Atari games - Space Invaders, Defender, Centipede, etc. - on my parents' bed at the age of 2. I can't see any way that it hurt me. My brother and I often used the on-screen action to make up elaborate stories, especially when there seemed to be little "plot." Some of my fondest memories from elementary school surround playing MECC games on the crappy Apple's we had. And it was college before I learned anything new about chemistry after a computer game my uncle gave me when I was 9 or so.
I'd say that it depends on the parents exercising their judgment about what is right for the child. Not that parents commonly do this anymore, unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy does inadvertently raise a potentially interesting question: from inside your own brain, how can you tell whether you are dead wrong or a persecuted visionary?
What, like these?
Yeah, I think you've got a big piece of it. It seems to me, though, that our policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union *has* been to irritate Russia - they've just finally recovered to the point where they can throw a tantrum about it. I can't help but feel like every administration from H.W. Bush until now has seriously mismanaged assisting Russia with its transition out of Soviet Communism. There had to be a better way to assist and protect the territorial integrity of the newly sovereign Eastern European nations - or some bargain so that Russia did not feel threatened by the expansion of NATO.
I think the reason for this is simple. North Korea has repeatedly violated agreements with us regarding inspection and dismantling of their nuclear programs, yet we haven't invaded them. Iran likewise has been attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but their government hasn't been toppled. India and Pakistan both developed (and maintain) nuclear weapons, but we've committed to helping India develop further nuclear energy technology, and Pakistan is considered a key regional ally. Israel occupies land in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, but we haven't invaded them to enforce those resolutions. I could go through and try to explain all of this - I think I could even do a fair job of it, citing reasons historical, diplomatic, political, economic, etc. But that would be complex. And people don't like complex. People like simple. It's far easier to look at the discrepancy and say the war was about oil. Personally? I'm not sure even President Bush fully understands why the war started.
Yeah, at least when we invaded Mexico and stole half their country, we had enough conscience to pay them something for the territory. Would have been better not to bow to jingoism, but making someone else pay you for the costs of invading their country? That's even more wrong.
This is possibly the truest thing I've ever heard.
Interesting thoughts - I don't know that "every PC needs a graphics card" so much as the marketing needs to distinguish more clearly between gaming PCs and web browser/word processor/etc. PCs. If you don't want to play games, you shouldn't have to buy the hardware for it, but if you do want to, you should be able to know what you're getting without doing research. It can be frustrating to try to find a computer to do what you want these days.
One of my earliest memories is of playing many, many classic Atari games - Space Invaders, Defender, Centipede, etc. - on my parents' bed at the age of 2. I can't see any way that it hurt me. My brother and I often used the on-screen action to make up elaborate stories, especially when there seemed to be little "plot." Some of my fondest memories from elementary school surround playing MECC games on the crappy Apple's we had. And it was college before I learned anything new about chemistry after a computer game my uncle gave me when I was 9 or so. I'd say that it depends on the parents exercising their judgment about what is right for the child. Not that parents commonly do this anymore, unfortunately.