You're seriously saying the Netherlands isn't more free than the US? Well, there's a wide range of views of what constitutes freedom. Your views seem to be biased towards economic freedom, as opposed to social freedom. To each his own.
The only reason you can fly the old bomb planes is that the new fighters have cleared the skies and established total air dominance. You've got to keep up with the state of the art in fighter technology, if you don't want to change your bombers. You didn't see any B52s over Serbia, partly because being old and subsonic they would be sitting ducks for SAMs and fighters.
I'm sorry, I should've previewed it before I posted. I'm picking up where Slashdot screwed up the message:
"You also don't have a clear understanding of what Democracy is. Democracy is "the majority wins," and is not "the majority wins until someone comes up with something better.""
I don't agree with you there. That would mean that laws and public policy don't change with changing public perception.
"This is an ad numeram argument."
Well, it was obviously made in the context of democratic procedure. Ad numeram in this case is the majority of voters.
"This argument is invalid until you define "negative impact.""
Well, I did make two examples of two extreme ends of opinion. You can pick either one to respond to if you like. It was an attempt at discussing the issue in abstract terms.
"Forgive me, but I thought that I was responding to the person who had originally replied. I was not paying attention and didn't realize that a different individual had picked up the banner. I have attributed some statements to you and that was not intended. If you recognize something that does not apply to you, please ignore it."
Apology accepted, I was wondering where the vitriol was coming from. I wouldn't say I was picking up anyone's banner though, I was merely responding to your public comments, and in quite a respectful manner if I may say so myself. The santa anecdote wasn't related to you really, it was just something funny I was reminded of when I saw the frequent mentions of "leftist".
No one will probably read this, but you raised some points that I'd like to address.
I honestly find your view interesting. My view is that if we're unsure or something on this scale of importance, the most prudent avenue is to fail on the side of caution. It seemed from previous comments that you would rather run the risk of a failing biosphere than a failing world economy. You are obviously a reasonable person, and I didn't think there were any reasonable people on the other side of this argument. That's why I did the comparison with Creationism.
I'm not going to defend leftists because I'm not one by my own definition. I would be playing the Devil's advocate. I'm more of a social libertarian/economic progressive mix. I admit was a bit unfair when I critized your linkage, but I found it humorous that you were critizing someone else for politicizing the issue in light of what you yourself was basing your argument on.
I don't agree that freedom is something objective that we can all agree on. Religious conservatives might argue that they aren't free until they can have prayers out loud in public school, while a civil libertarian might find that prayer in public school would infringe on their freedom not to practice any religion. (As a side note, I know that some religous conservatives might answer that you aren't free to practice no religion, only any religion.)
>
I don't agree with you there. That would mean that laws and public policy don't change with changing public perception.
>
Well, it was obviously made in the context of democratic procedure. Ad numeram in this case is the majority of voters.
>
Well, I did make two examples of two extreme ends of opinion. You can pick either one to respond to if you like. I didn't advocate either. It was an attempt at discussing the issue in abstract terms.
>
Apology accepted, I was wondering where the vitriol was coming from. I wouldn't say I was picking up anyone's banner though, I was merely responding to your public comments, and in quite a respectful manner if I may say so myself. The santa anecdote wasn't related to you really, it was just something funny I was reminded of when I saw the frequent mentions of "leftist".
I notice that you link to a blatantly political web site. Weren't you just complaining how politicized the issue is?
You are correct in that there are a few experts who do not believe that the global warming we observe is caused by our emissions. But on the other hand, there are a few experts advocating Creationism, and that's always being brought up in discussions over evolution as a valid argument against the theory. Science is a multitude of opinions and theories, but in the end it operates kind of like a democracy, the majority wins, until someone comes up with something better. To demand that scientists prove something to a point where it can't be argued against is unreasonable, because it would mean we could never capitalize on the knowledge gained. There will always be people who argue the counterpoint, and that's as it should be. The day you've got a majority of climate researchers on your side, you can go ahead and start polluting without any restriction again.
And finally, the libertarian argument of individual freedom doesn't work in this case. Libertarian freedom isn't absolute, it ends where you negatively impact a third party. We do know pollution does that, on your end you can argue that they will just get dirty laundry when they leave it out to dry, and someone else can argue that the planet is going to hell in a handbasket. But there is a negative impact on a third party wherever you end up on that scale.
P.S. When I say "you" I don't necessarily mean that those are your personal opinions or actions By the way when you were going on about "Leftists" I was reminded of something hilarious I saw on the news yesterday. Some people were protesting that a town had banned Santas from a public ceremony, so they were carrying signs saying "Liberals want to kill Santa".
Re:Moon composition, He3, and a reality check...
on
Mining On The Moon
·
· Score: 1
Yea, but you don't have to launch something from earth for every load coming from the moon. It is true that it'll cost a lot of money to set up the automated operations on the moon, but once it is started, the production cost per unit will decrease the more you produce and send home.
Launching the ore from the moon won't cost much b/c of the low gravity, and a landing it on the earth could probably be done with parachutes.
All the attempts at calculations I've seen on Slashdot as of yet seem to assume that we'll send up the Space Shuttles to bring the ore down for some reason.
The tightest groups seems to be to be veterans of war. I've had the privilege to listen in on groups of former Rangers and Green Berets talking. They'll keep in touch with their old buddies their entire lives, and keep meeting regularly no matter where in the world they may live. It seems that relying on your "coworkers" to guard your back is the ultimate bonding experience. It is hard to imagine a situation where a techie would be in that situation, unless you count Quake matches..;)
Great, but unfortunately that sticky black liquid lies under their real-estate. At least the US doesn't go in and just annex the country like a true imperialist country would. Yea yea, I already know what you are thinking. No, doing business with a country is not "imposing our will on them". Not more than you are imposing your will on your local stores when you choose where you shop. You are excersising force in selecting where to shop, but the store can still choose to do business with someone else if they don't like your money. It may be immoral to do business with a corrupt regime, that much I'm willing to grant, but hardly imperialistic.
Re:Hmmm.... that's a nice quote... but....
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
And your suggestion is? Can you suggest an option for the US that would make massmurderers who can kill over 5000 civilians in a premeditated action stop? And if there was such an action, which there isn't, would it be right to take it? No, because then we are saying "everyone who can kill more than 1000 americans will get their wish granted".
I feel sorry for the innocent Afghanis caught in the cross-fire, but not taking action would be even worse. Appeasement in the face of evil purpose is tantamount to suicide.
That's not to say we can't simultaneously take action to help people and improve relations with Islamic majority nations in different ways.
Sounds a lot like Close Combat. They've got morale and all that, and it has a very real effect on the battles. However, it doesn't involve building troops (but that's more historically accurate for a tactical game anyway).
The irony is that the smae people who preach gun owners' rights are the first ones to persecute citizens for being "unamerican". Case in point, McCarthy and people like him before and after. Another irony is that calling someone unamerican for speaking his mind, is in itself unamerican. Keep this in mind in the coming months, as the right-wingers try to impose unreasonable restrictions on our freedoms "for our own good". I hope the Democrats have the guts to stand up against this even though it is not a popular opinion to have these days.
Let's compare what the Romans or Persians did when a city defied them (they killed every man, woman and child, or sold them into slavery) and what NATO did against Serbia. How many civilians died in Serbia as a direct effect of the bombings, 100 or so out of a couple million citizens? How many were sold into slavery? You seem to have a fairytale view of ancient warfare.
I don't know about your hometown, but in Europe most people are away when "in broad daylight" doing something known as working. That's why there are fewer burglaries during weekends.
Err, going into a country with troops to fight an indigenous army is an invasion in my book. Let's hear what encyclopedia.com has to say:
"Afghanistan War,
1978-92, conflict between anti-Communist Afghan guerrillas and Afghan government and USSR forces. In 1978, a coup installed a new Communist government under Nur Mohammad Taraki. In 1979, another coup, which brought in Hafizullah Amin, resulted in an invasion (Dec., 1979) of USSR forces and the installation of Babrak Karmal as president. The number of USSR troops, originally estimated at 30,000, grew to 100,000, and the conflict settled into a stalemate. The Muslims were supported by aid from the U.S., China, and Saudi Arabia, channeled through Pakistan, and from Iran. Although the USSR had superior weapons and complete air control, the rebels successfully eluded them. As the war progressed, the rebels improved their organization and tactics and began using imported and captured weapons, included U.S. anti-aircraft missiles, to neutralize the technological advantages of the USSR..."
I'll spare you the rest. Evidently I'm not the only one who considers it an invasion. I would think that most history books outside of the old Soviet Union does too. Prove me wrong. And no, an assertion from you does not constitute proof.
The Delta forces (or D-boys as they call themselves) are not in general used for the type of situations you describe. They are the Army's equivalent to a SWAT team, ie. mostly tactical assault.
For hooking up with the natives, training them, and sustained guerilla warfare, they would use the Army Special Forces, also known as the Green Berets. They were very effective training the native hill people in western Vietnam. Of course, the US lost the war in the end, but not because of this.
When they need even less specialized soldiers, but still highly trained, they would turn to the Rangers.
For a great look into this sphere of the Army, I would recommend "Black Hawk Down". It's based on an actual operation they tried to do in Somalia.
Interesting that you would refer to MS Office as a tangible item. Goes to show how well Microsoft has succeeded in taking software from something ethereal to a box you buy in the store.
Who gave this posting moderation points?? It makes no sense. He basically says that the media says Gore is intelligent, because they want him to be, and then he himself says that Bush is intelligent, because he wants him to be. I asume he doesn't have any first hand knowledge of either.
That story says that there are two fully built space shuttles. There is a story linked on the page that says one space shuttle is to be sold to Australia to be put on display, and there was a story on Slashdot recently that one space shuttle is to be sold at an online auction. Two minus two equals zero. What's going on here?
Slashdot Mirror
You're seriously saying the Netherlands isn't more free than the US? Well, there's a wide range of views of what constitutes freedom. Your views seem to be biased towards economic freedom, as opposed to social freedom. To each his own.
On the back of the coins, the will have the silhouette of a guy with a giant 'fro! ;)
Are you saying they were written down before the exile?
The only reason you can fly the old bomb planes is that the new fighters have cleared the skies and established total air dominance. You've got to keep up with the state of the art in fighter technology, if you don't want to change your bombers. You didn't see any B52s over Serbia, partly because being old and subsonic they would be sitting ducks for SAMs and fighters.
I'm sorry, I should've previewed it before I posted. I'm picking up where Slashdot screwed up the message:
"You also don't have a clear understanding of what Democracy is. Democracy is "the majority wins," and is not "the majority wins until someone comes up with something better.""
I don't agree with you there. That would mean that laws and public policy don't change with changing public perception.
"This is an ad numeram argument."
Well, it was obviously made in the context of democratic procedure. Ad numeram in this case is the majority of voters.
"This argument is invalid until you define "negative impact.""
Well, I did make two examples of two extreme ends of opinion. You can pick either one to respond to if you like. It was an attempt at discussing the issue in abstract terms.
"Forgive me, but I thought that I was responding to the person who had originally replied. I was not paying attention and didn't realize that a different individual had picked up the banner. I have attributed some statements to you and that was not intended. If you recognize something that does not apply to you, please ignore it."
Apology accepted, I was wondering where the vitriol was coming from. I wouldn't say I was picking up anyone's banner though, I was merely responding to your public comments, and in quite a respectful manner if I may say so myself. The santa anecdote wasn't related to you really, it was just something funny I was reminded of when I saw the frequent mentions of "leftist".
No one will probably read this, but you raised some points that I'd like to address.
I honestly find your view interesting. My view is that if we're unsure or something on this scale of importance, the most prudent avenue is to fail on the side of caution. It seemed from previous comments that you would rather run the risk of a failing biosphere than a failing world economy. You are obviously a reasonable person, and I didn't think there were any reasonable people on the other side of this argument. That's why I did the comparison with Creationism.
I'm not going to defend leftists because I'm not one by my own definition. I would be playing the Devil's advocate. I'm more of a social libertarian/economic progressive mix. I admit was a bit unfair when I critized your linkage, but I found it humorous that you were critizing someone else for politicizing the issue in light of what you yourself was basing your argument on.
I don't agree that freedom is something objective that we can all agree on. Religious conservatives might argue that they aren't free until they can have prayers out loud in public school, while a civil libertarian might find that prayer in public school would infringe on their freedom not to practice any religion. (As a side note, I know that some religous conservatives might answer that you aren't free to practice no religion, only any religion.)
>
I don't agree with you there. That would mean that laws and public policy don't change with changing public perception.
>
Well, it was obviously made in the context of democratic procedure. Ad numeram in this case is the majority of voters.
>
Well, I did make two examples of two extreme ends of opinion. You can pick either one to respond to if you like. I didn't advocate either. It was an attempt at discussing the issue in abstract terms.
>
Apology accepted, I was wondering where the vitriol was coming from. I wouldn't say I was picking up anyone's banner though, I was merely responding to your public comments, and in quite a respectful manner if I may say so myself. The santa anecdote wasn't related to you really, it was just something funny I was reminded of when I saw the frequent mentions of "leftist".
I started replying to your post, but then I thought "Nah! I think I'll ignore this one.". ;-)
I notice that you link to a blatantly political web site. Weren't you just complaining how politicized the issue is?
You are correct in that there are a few experts who do not believe that the global warming we observe is caused by our emissions. But on the other hand, there are a few experts advocating Creationism, and that's always being brought up in discussions over evolution as a valid argument against the theory. Science is a multitude of opinions and theories, but in the end it operates kind of like a democracy, the majority wins, until someone comes up with something better. To demand that scientists prove something to a point where it can't be argued against is unreasonable, because it would mean we could never capitalize on the knowledge gained. There will always be people who argue the counterpoint, and that's as it should be. The day you've got a majority of climate researchers on your side, you can go ahead and start polluting without any restriction again.
And finally, the libertarian argument of individual freedom doesn't work in this case. Libertarian freedom isn't absolute, it ends where you negatively impact a third party. We do know pollution does that, on your end you can argue that they will just get dirty laundry when they leave it out to dry, and someone else can argue that the planet is going to hell in a handbasket. But there is a negative impact on a third party wherever you end up on that scale.
P.S. When I say "you" I don't necessarily mean that those are your personal opinions or actions By the way when you were going on about "Leftists" I was reminded of something hilarious I saw on the news yesterday. Some people were protesting that a town had banned Santas from a public ceremony, so they were carrying signs saying "Liberals want to kill Santa".
Yea, but you don't have to launch something from earth for every load coming from the moon. It is true that it'll cost a lot of money to set up the automated operations on the moon, but once it is started, the production cost per unit will decrease the more you produce and send home.
Launching the ore from the moon won't cost much b/c of the low gravity, and a landing it on the earth could probably be done with parachutes.
All the attempts at calculations I've seen on Slashdot as of yet seem to assume that we'll send up the Space Shuttles to bring the ore down for some reason.
The tightest groups seems to be to be veterans of war. I've had the privilege to listen in on groups of former Rangers and Green Berets talking. They'll keep in touch with their old buddies their entire lives, and keep meeting regularly no matter where in the world they may live. It seems that relying on your "coworkers" to guard your back is the ultimate bonding experience. It is hard to imagine a situation where a techie would be in that situation, unless you count Quake matches.. ;)
Not many people were speaking up during the witch trials either, but I think we both know why. Hardly admirable, but I'm not one to judge them.
Great, but unfortunately that sticky black liquid lies under their real-estate. At least the US doesn't go in and just annex the country like a true imperialist country would. Yea yea, I already know what you are thinking. No, doing business with a country is not "imposing our will on them". Not more than you are imposing your will on your local stores when you choose where you shop. You are excersising force in selecting where to shop, but the store can still choose to do business with someone else if they don't like your money. It may be immoral to do business with a corrupt regime, that much I'm willing to grant, but hardly imperialistic.
And your suggestion is? Can you suggest an option for the US that would make massmurderers who can kill over 5000 civilians in a premeditated action stop? And if there was such an action, which there isn't, would it be right to take it? No, because then we are saying "everyone who can kill more than 1000 americans will get their wish granted".
I feel sorry for the innocent Afghanis caught in the cross-fire, but not taking action would be even worse. Appeasement in the face of evil purpose is tantamount to suicide.
That's not to say we can't simultaneously take action to help people and improve relations with Islamic majority nations in different ways.
Sounds a lot like Close Combat. They've got morale and all that, and it has a very real effect on the battles. However, it doesn't involve building troops (but that's more historically accurate for a tactical game anyway).
The irony is that the smae people who preach gun owners' rights are the first ones to persecute citizens for being "unamerican". Case in point, McCarthy and people like him before and after. Another irony is that calling someone unamerican for speaking his mind, is in itself unamerican. Keep this in mind in the coming months, as the right-wingers try to impose unreasonable restrictions on our freedoms "for our own good". I hope the Democrats have the guts to stand up against this even though it is not a popular opinion to have these days.
Why not just bring a hot dog cart there or something like that? Anyway, this is 4 people, can't make much of a living off of them.
Let's compare what the Romans or Persians did when a city defied them (they killed every man, woman and child, or sold them into slavery) and what NATO did against Serbia. How many civilians died in Serbia as a direct effect of the bombings, 100 or so out of a couple million citizens? How many were sold into slavery? You seem to have a fairytale view of ancient warfare.
I don't know about your hometown, but in Europe most people are away when "in broad daylight" doing something known as working. That's why there are fewer burglaries during weekends.
Err, going into a country with troops to fight an indigenous army is an invasion in my book. Let's hear what encyclopedia.com has to say:
"Afghanistan War,
1978-92, conflict between anti-Communist Afghan guerrillas and Afghan government and USSR forces. In 1978, a coup installed a new Communist government under Nur Mohammad Taraki. In 1979, another coup, which brought in Hafizullah Amin, resulted in an invasion (Dec., 1979) of USSR forces and the installation of Babrak Karmal as president. The number of USSR troops, originally estimated at 30,000, grew to 100,000, and the conflict settled into a stalemate. The Muslims were supported by aid from the U.S., China, and Saudi Arabia, channeled through Pakistan, and from Iran. Although the USSR had superior weapons and complete air control, the rebels successfully eluded them. As the war progressed, the rebels improved their organization and tactics and began using imported and captured weapons, included U.S. anti-aircraft missiles, to neutralize the technological advantages of the USSR..."
I'll spare you the rest. Evidently I'm not the only one who considers it an invasion. I would think that most history books outside of the old Soviet Union does too. Prove me wrong. And no, an assertion from you does not constitute proof.
Umm, if you missed it, that article was talking about Operation Desert Storm.
The Delta forces (or D-boys as they call themselves) are not in general used for the type of situations you describe. They are the Army's equivalent to a SWAT team, ie. mostly tactical assault.
For hooking up with the natives, training them, and sustained guerilla warfare, they would use the Army Special Forces, also known as the Green Berets. They were very effective training the native hill people in western Vietnam. Of course, the US lost the war in the end, but not because of this.
When they need even less specialized soldiers, but still highly trained, they would turn to the Rangers.
For a great look into this sphere of the Army, I would recommend "Black Hawk Down". It's based on an actual operation they tried to do in Somalia.
Interesting that you would refer to MS Office as a tangible item. Goes to show how well Microsoft has succeeded in taking software from something ethereal to a box you buy in the store.
Who gave this posting moderation points?? It makes no sense. He basically says that the media says Gore is intelligent, because they want him to be, and then he himself says that Bush is intelligent, because he wants him to be. I asume he doesn't have any first hand knowledge of either.
That story says that there are two fully built space shuttles. There is a story linked on the page that says one space shuttle is to be sold to Australia to be put on display, and there was a story on Slashdot recently that one space shuttle is to be sold at an online auction. Two minus two equals zero. What's going on here?
Doh, what about Fall Out Tactics? Cool game...