The irony of the dotcom bubble being that nine out of ten such projects should have gone somewhere, but eleven out of the ten were poorly managed by clueless asshats and so none of them justified anything at all.
The only quibble I have with this analysis is the facile disposition of the "economic and political interests" of the Western powers.
It's not like China can be cut off from the global economy without having a severe impact, in the short term, at least, on the welfare and strength of the developed world. It's an ugly reality, but a reality nonetheless.
Churchill firmly believed that the suffering brought about by an early confrontation with Hitlerite Germany would be a small price to pay to avoid the much greater suffering brought about by a later (and inevitable) confrontation with Hitlerite Germany.
But then, Churchill didn't have to worry about the possibility of Hitlerite Germany funding terrorists and equipping them with nuclear weapons.
It's my theory that the Chinese government wants to reform, and is in the process of a slow but steady liberalization of their regime, but that they wish to avoid the chaos brought about by rapid and unmanaged reform. They can see how the rapid reform process worked out in the former Soviet Union, and want no part of such a scenario.
As a result, I strongly doubt that increased pressure, especially in the form of economic sanctions, will not encourage them to reform more rapidly. Rather, I expect that increased pressure would encourage them to seriously consider other options.
One such option (one that I would be planning for already, if I were them), would be to use their propaganda power to poison the hearts and minds of their citizenry against the west, and to pursue a policy of destabilization of the developed world. Call in U.S. debt, arrange a few terrorist nukings of appropriate western population and industrial centers, disrupt the world economy, and in the resulting chaos emerge as the new hyperpower, well-positioned to dictate their own terms to the world.
After sleeping on the subject, two more thoughts have occurred to me:
One, that while every move Hitler made brought him closer to his horrible goal, the trend in Chinese policy over the last fifteen years or so has been in the other direction. It's one thing to punish and isolate a madman who keeps worsening the situation. It's another thing to punish and isolate a sane man whose self-improvement is taking longer than you would like.
Two, that there is a bitter irony for me here, in that I actually do agree with Chamberlain's ideas in this context, even though I disagree with his ideas in the context in which he applied them.
China is relatively stable, but its people are sorely oppressed--not as oppressed as they were ten years ago, and not as oppressed as they will be ten years from now, but still, they're oppressed. Economic sanctions will certainly make their situation worse before it makes their situation better. And in the best-case scenario, there's a very real risk that it won't make their situation better at all. Again, I draw your attention to the Russian fiasco.
In the worst-case scenario, far from encouraging rapid reform, your plan could well drive the Chinese government back to their old ways. After all, nothing takes the minds of the masses off their own oppression and hardship like having an outside enemy to blame it all on. It could also encourage the Chinese government to pursue a policy of destabilizing and weakening its newfound economic enemies.
Economic sanctions will also make the situation worse for all the free peoples of the west, whose economic and stability is unfortunately bound up in the Chinese economy. This is sure to happen even if the Chinese governement doesn't choose to exacerbate the situation with retaliatory economic attacks.
These are my concerns. I wholeheartedly believe that the politicians who make these decisions are corrupt and incompetent in varying degrees. I'm sure that talented people of good will could find a way to improve the situation, and make us all less complicit in China's human rights violations, but I do believe it's a matter of degree.
You're absolutely right. I had mistaken the time frame, and should not have asserted that Hitler was still eligible for an easy coup by the German generals in that year. By '38, that time had passed. Nevertheless, I do believe Churchill's actual reasons for not appeasing Hitler in '38 (which did not include the prospects of a coup) were quite valid and should have guided Chamberlain to a very different course than the one he chose. But unless you believe that the Chinese government is currently vulnerable to a coup by friendly factions, I'm not sure how it's relevant to the point we're discussing, let alone the final word on the argument.
Exactly. Except for the part that I don't see it as appeasement, that I believe the conditions which obtained in 1938 WRT Hitlerite Germany are radically different than the conditions that obtain in 2005 (and in 1995, and in 1985, and in 1975, and probably even in 1965) WRT Communist China, and that while I do understand and agree with Churchill's reasons for opposing Chamberlain's policy I do not understand or agree with your reasons for opposing my policy in that you have given no reasons at all beyond an anachronistic and ahistorical hangup on superficial similarities between two radically different situations.
For a pleasant change of pace, feel free to explain how a policy of economic isolationism has pursuaded the Castro regime to put an end to Communist Cuba's human rights abuses.
Can you give any details at all on how you think this would impact the Chinese economy, and how they might react? Any support at all for your claim that this would bring about immediate reforms? Any reasons at all to discount the possibility that forcing China into rapid reform could result in a situation similar to what's going on in the former Soviet Union right now? Any reasons at all to discount the concern that the Chinese government might choose something other than rapid reform under pressure, rather than risk the Russian outcome?
In 1938 Hitler's power was far from established, and the military leadership was seriously considering a coup.
It wasn't until a couple years later, after he had successfully bluffed the world repeatedly in the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, that even the generals began to believe in him, and that his cult of personality became firmly entrenched among soldiers and civilians alike.
I wasn't saying it wasn't true. I was just saying it's a pretty vague and unsupported off-the-cuff remark, rather than a scientific description, and thus incongruous in a story about hard science. It was doubly aggravating in that it was totally irrelevant to the point of the article. Not that the article actually got around to making the interesting scientific point anyway (i.e., never actually explaining how bees fly).
I used the phrase "bring to heel" as a figure of speech, not as an analogy.
I don't think China would attack the U.S. at least not directly. Rather, I think that China would probably resort to some combination of invasion of eastern Russia (for certain resources), nuclear blackmail, and covert funding and equipping of terrorist organizations.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some combination of the latter two isn't a factor in all our current negotiations with China.
Anyway, my point is that there's been a slow but steady trend towards reform and liberalization in China, over the last couple of decades, and that that is a good thing, not to be given up lightly.
I wish it would progress faster. I wish that our economy wasn't so entangled with the Chinese economy that disentangling the two would cause hardship and suffering here, and weaken our ability to counter Chinese power in worst-case scenarios. I wish that politicians the world over weren't corrupt and incompetent in varying degrees. But one thing I don't wish for is an ill-advised drastic increase in the economic and diplomatic pressure on a populous, disgruntled, nuclear power with a key role in the global economy.
I'm curious: do you have in mind any specific examples of trade agreements with China, that if not made, would have hastened the process of human rights reforms in China, and would not have caused significant problems that, while not as bad as Chinese human rights violations, would nonetheless have required costly and time-consuming solutions we may not have had the resources to pursue?
Or are you just assuming that such cases must exist, and if we only knew about them we could put the whole situation right?
If it's the former, please share. I'd like to have some concrete data to adjust my opinions against.
If it's the latter, then by the same token shouldn't you also assume that the opposite cases exist as well; that there are many specific instances of diplomacy and economic negotiation used successfully as a tool to bring about reforms in China without causing upheaval around the world? That much of the time, the process is actually working?
On another note, how far would you go? Are you advocating nothing more than tougher negotiations? Or would you be in favor of actual sanctions? What do you think China would do, if we made a credible threat to cut off their oils supply?
Well, it would have been pretty stupid to set up a secret facility such that any asshat could land there with impunity, simply by faking mechanical difficulties with their aircraft.
Seems to me the civilian pilot community is much better off being absolutely clear that Area 51 isn't an option, and getting in the habit of having other contingency plans besides landing at Groom Lake.
All the action is in drones these days, and R&D is humming along quite nicely in that area.
Besides, the problem space for new military technology keeps changing. High altitude stealth reconnaissance planes were important for a time. Now we get better results from satellites in most cases. Also, as technology becomes more mainstream, radical new R&D programs in that field become less necessary. It's more cost effective to make the last generation of exotic technology a standard feature of this generation's off-the-shelf weapons system.
Anyway, the big problem space for military R&D right now seems to be in the field of automation. You shouldn't have to look to hard to find lots of really interesting information about all the exciting new developments just in the past few years, in that field.
Actually, the government excels at keeping secrets. For example, you obviously have no clue that the government revealed the existence of Area 51 on purpose, in order to deflect attention from their real secret research facilities.
If they're asking that question, it's reasonable to assume the same question was asked about them during their own background checks, back when they first applied for the job.
Hopefully, since they got hired, their background check interviewees thought the question through carefully and answered honestly "yes", rather than being flippant smartasses.
On the other hand, this story is proof that America really is a democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people: A flippant, smartass citizenry produces flippant smartass FBI agents, while a thoughtful, sincere citizenry would produce thoughtful, sincere FBI agents.
I mean, sure, your girlfriend doesn't get to personally approve of every FBI agent out there, but every FBI agent on the force had to be approved by some citizens, somewhere.
Thus, the quality of our FBI agents reflects the values and concerns of our citizenry as a whole. How cool is that?
Hitler's policy was to take Germany to war at the earliest possible moment, and to exploit every attempt at peace by his neighbors to strengthen his war machine for the violent conflict he envisioned.
Are you saying China is doing the same thing now?
The alternative to appeasing Hitler in the late 30s would have been to isolate Hitler in the late 30s. Winston Churchill found a lot to commend this course of action, as he believed that at that time Germany was too weak to respond to isolation by going to war, and that a stern rebuke in 1938 would have prevented the whole horrible disaster altogether.
Are you saying that China, equipped modern military technology and infrastructure, boasting the manpower to stand up the largest army in the world, and armed with nuclear weapons, is in a similarly weak position, such that a stern rebuke and a policy of economic isolation would bring them rapidly to heel, rather than sparking a world war?
Chamberlain sincerely believed that taking a hard line with Germany in the '30s would lead to a violent and bloody conflict that the people of Europe did not have the stomach for (Hitler exploited this sentiment, especially in war-ravaged France, to great effect).
Are you saying that you, today, do have the stomach for war with China? That the people of China (who would probably be slaughtered in the millions during such a war) would be better off if we isolated China right now?
It is my view that Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler was needless, as Germany was not a power in 1938, and Hitler was on the verge of being ousted by calmer heads in the German power structure anyway at that time.
It is my view that "appeasement" of China is needful, as China is now a power in both conventional arms and nuclear weapons, its ruling cabal is not currently teetering on the verge of a coup by more tractable elements in the regime, and its position in the world is much more influential and disruptive than Germany's was at the time. I also think that China, far from being ruled by a megalomaniac bent on world domination, is ruled by a cabal of old men who have a vested interest in the status quo. Rather than planning a violent takeover of the entire world, I believe they're much more interested in maintaining their control over a stable and subservient populace. This means, in practical terms, that their best course of action is to ease in the freedoms that their people hunger for, but not so quickly as to undermine their own power base. Thus, pressuring them to pursue this course as quickly as possible is a good idea, while forcing them to consider other options such as crackdowns and wars of agression for resources, is a bad idea.
Of course, I could be just as wrong as Chamberlain was. I doubt it, though, given the extreme nature of the differences between the two scenarios.
Yet the whole idea of metaphysics seems pretty interesting, when you sit down and think about it.
And that's all religion is, really: applied metaphysics.
I honestly don't understand either why some people insist that metaphysics and physics should not be complementary, or why other people insist that physics is a proper tool for studying metaphysics.
What if I assume there's a finite amount of information, and that one of the reasons it's finite is that it isn't being stored (e.g., that when the universe runs out of storage space, it deletes stale data)?
So Altshuler claims, without any supporting evidence, that unnamed "people" in the undefined "ID community" make a big deal out of the unknowability of bee flight mechanics, and that having disproved this unkowability, he's successfully countered their alleged arugment?
Wow.
Also, is it just me, or does the article not actually explain how bees fly?
As far as I can tell, this article tells us three things:
1. That bee flight is exotic. (Which is pretty much a tautology; if bee flight were mundane, we would have figured it out a long time ago.)
2. That we learn more about bee flight by using robots with force sensors than we do using fixed-wing aerodynamic theory.
3. That however bees fly, they have to work harder at it in thinner atmosphere, and that it involves amplitude increases rather than frequency increases.
Which all means what, exactly?
You'd think that an article about how we've finally discovered the secret of bee flight would spend rather more time explaining it, and rather less time on such non-newsworthy aspects of the story such as what the researcher believes the current state of play in the ID debate is.
I mean, bees flying! A mystery that has eluded smarty men for a hundred years or more! Finally solved! And nothing in the article actually approaches a description of the solution.
China has the power to plunge the world into violent chaos, if it does not get its way, and if its needs are not met.
What would you have the U.S. government do? Forsake peace and prosperity and an incremental approach to reforming China, in favor of cutting them off, putting their backs against a wall, and taking us all straight to World War IV?
I mean, it's an option, of course. Is it your option?
The fact is, China has been reforming incrementally even since before Tiananmen Square. They know what's going on. A lot of their policy is guided by a desire to meet their citizens' growing demands for freedom without plunging the country into the state of mafia-ruled anarchy that plagues the former Soviet Union today. They've learned a lot from Russia's rush to reform. The main lesson being: take it slow.
I think a lot of their current crackdown on the Internet has to do with limiting their people's access to outside information that will whet their appetite for reforms: An appetite that cannot be swiftly fed, and that, once awakened will lead to violent uprisings if not immediately sated.
I dunno. Maybe violent uprisings are the answer. And it's certain the people in power in China have their own best interests at heart, with the incremental approach.
But I ask you, what would you do? Would you rather put China in a position where they have nothing to lose? That leads to war--nuclear war, most likely. Or would you rather use international commerce as a tool for applying both carrots and sticks to China, to encourage them to join the free world at their own pace, but join it nonetheless?
If China was still relatively powerless (like, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq), then I'd be all about a forcible regime change, and the sooner the better.
But they're not.
The fact is, you have no idea what kind of pressure is really being brought to bear on the Chinese government. You have no idea what kinds of things get discussed in those trade negotiations. You have no idea what kinds of factors come into play, that might influence Chinese government policy on a broad spectrum, as a result of engaging with them economically instead of isolating them.
And you obviously have no idea what the potential ramifications of an isolationist policy with regard to China would be.
Or do you? Maybe I have you all wrong, and you're some kind of expert Far East Asia SocioPolitial Analyst, who has it all figured out. If so, please point us to your scholarly papers, detailed analysis, and/or personal blog full of insightful commentary on the subject. Enlighten us, please: how do we go about isolating China to force a faster rate of reform, without forcing them into war, instead? In what material way would it differ in appearance from what the western powers are doing right now? Don't forget to account for all the other constraints, influences, boundaries, and assorted limitations that western politicians must work within, in order to bring this peaceful reform of China about (including, of course, the sad fact of human weakness both in elected officials and in the masses that elect them).
The thing about death is, the only thing you can do about it is laugh.
It's inevitable. What are you going to do? Spend your time moping about the end in store for you? Or live your life with verve and panache?
"Was he inspired by the Rage cover"? Good stuff.
Almost as good as that Fark p-shop showing the Vietnamese general holding a Starbucks coffee mug to the head of a captured Viet Cong guerrilla. That was comedy gold.
For one thing, it's in the form of the classic "friend of a friend" urban myth.
For another thing, of course that's what a responsible Area 51 staffer would say, whether it was true or not.
For another thing, it's entirely possible that the alleged staffer was not cleared to know about the non-man-made things that may or may not be there, and so may not actually know what he's talking about.
Which would be a civil suit? Preventing UPS drivers from completing their rounds and thus costing the company money and possibly putting it in breach of contract with its customers? I'd wager that's a criminal offense.
Obstructing the local Sheriff's department? Again, probably gonna be a criminal offense.
I'm not sure you can interfere with legitimate government business and have it be a civil suit kinda thing, really. Messing with the government tends to be a criminal thing, every time.
Since when is encouraging people to participate in a DDOS attack on a government server, for the purpose of preventing that server from performing its intended function, not a crime?
Sounds like the kid was actually busted for encouraging people to wilfully impede the operations of a legitimate government enterprise.
If he'd encouraged his fellow to cut off UPS trucks and drive real slow, to prevent them from completing their rounds on time, UPS would sue, and with good reason.
If he'd encouraged his classmates to camp out in front of the Sherrif's intake gate at the local courthouse, for the purpose of inhibiting the in-processing of prisoners for their trials, he'd be arrested for sure, and probably not on a misdemeanor count, either.
This isn't "felony for refreshing a webpage" at all. It's "felony for promoting the wilful obstruction of the government in the discharge of its obligations to its citizens". Seems about right to me.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony of the dotcom bubble being that nine out of ten such projects should have gone somewhere, but eleven out of the ten were poorly managed by clueless asshats and so none of them justified anything at all.
The only quibble I have with this analysis is the facile disposition of the "economic and political interests" of the Western powers.
It's not like China can be cut off from the global economy without having a severe impact, in the short term, at least, on the welfare and strength of the developed world. It's an ugly reality, but a reality nonetheless.
Churchill firmly believed that the suffering brought about by an early confrontation with Hitlerite Germany would be a small price to pay to avoid the much greater suffering brought about by a later (and inevitable) confrontation with Hitlerite Germany.
But then, Churchill didn't have to worry about the possibility of Hitlerite Germany funding terrorists and equipping them with nuclear weapons.
It's my theory that the Chinese government wants to reform, and is in the process of a slow but steady liberalization of their regime, but that they wish to avoid the chaos brought about by rapid and unmanaged reform. They can see how the rapid reform process worked out in the former Soviet Union, and want no part of such a scenario.
As a result, I strongly doubt that increased pressure, especially in the form of economic sanctions, will not encourage them to reform more rapidly. Rather, I expect that increased pressure would encourage them to seriously consider other options.
One such option (one that I would be planning for already, if I were them), would be to use their propaganda power to poison the hearts and minds of their citizenry against the west, and to pursue a policy of destabilization of the developed world. Call in U.S. debt, arrange a few terrorist nukings of appropriate western population and industrial centers, disrupt the world economy, and in the resulting chaos emerge as the new hyperpower, well-positioned to dictate their own terms to the world.
After sleeping on the subject, two more thoughts have occurred to me:
One, that while every move Hitler made brought him closer to his horrible goal, the trend in Chinese policy over the last fifteen years or so has been in the other direction. It's one thing to punish and isolate a madman who keeps worsening the situation. It's another thing to punish and isolate a sane man whose self-improvement is taking longer than you would like.
Two, that there is a bitter irony for me here, in that I actually do agree with Chamberlain's ideas in this context, even though I disagree with his ideas in the context in which he applied them.
China is relatively stable, but its people are sorely oppressed--not as oppressed as they were ten years ago, and not as oppressed as they will be ten years from now, but still, they're oppressed. Economic sanctions will certainly make their situation worse before it makes their situation better. And in the best-case scenario, there's a very real risk that it won't make their situation better at all. Again, I draw your attention to the Russian fiasco.
In the worst-case scenario, far from encouraging rapid reform, your plan could well drive the Chinese government back to their old ways. After all, nothing takes the minds of the masses off their own oppression and hardship like having an outside enemy to blame it all on. It could also encourage the Chinese government to pursue a policy of destabilizing and weakening its newfound economic enemies.
Economic sanctions will also make the situation worse for all the free peoples of the west, whose economic and stability is unfortunately bound up in the Chinese economy. This is sure to happen even if the Chinese governement doesn't choose to exacerbate the situation with retaliatory economic attacks.
These are my concerns. I wholeheartedly believe that the politicians who make these decisions are corrupt and incompetent in varying degrees. I'm sure that talented people of good will could find a way to improve the situation, and make us all less complicit in China's human rights violations, but I do believe it's a matter of degree.
The drastic measur
You're absolutely right. I had mistaken the time frame, and should not have asserted that Hitler was still eligible for an easy coup by the German generals in that year. By '38, that time had passed. Nevertheless, I do believe Churchill's actual reasons for not appeasing Hitler in '38 (which did not include the prospects of a coup) were quite valid and should have guided Chamberlain to a very different course than the one he chose. But unless you believe that the Chinese government is currently vulnerable to a coup by friendly factions, I'm not sure how it's relevant to the point we're discussing, let alone the final word on the argument.
Exactly. Except for the part that I don't see it as appeasement, that I believe the conditions which obtained in 1938 WRT Hitlerite Germany are radically different than the conditions that obtain in 2005 (and in 1995, and in 1985, and in 1975, and probably even in 1965) WRT Communist China, and that while I do understand and agree with Churchill's reasons for opposing Chamberlain's policy I do not understand or agree with your reasons for opposing my policy in that you have given no reasons at all beyond an anachronistic and ahistorical hangup on superficial similarities between two radically different situations. For a pleasant change of pace, feel free to explain how a policy of economic isolationism has pursuaded the Castro regime to put an end to Communist Cuba's human rights abuses.
Halt all trade with China?
Can you give any details at all on how you think this would impact the Chinese economy, and how they might react? Any support at all for your claim that this would bring about immediate reforms? Any reasons at all to discount the possibility that forcing China into rapid reform could result in a situation similar to what's going on in the former Soviet Union right now? Any reasons at all to discount the concern that the Chinese government might choose something other than rapid reform under pressure, rather than risk the Russian outcome?
In 1938 Hitler's power was far from established, and the military leadership was seriously considering a coup.
It wasn't until a couple years later, after he had successfully bluffed the world repeatedly in the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, that even the generals began to believe in him, and that his cult of personality became firmly entrenched among soldiers and civilians alike.
I wasn't saying it wasn't true. I was just saying it's a pretty vague and unsupported off-the-cuff remark, rather than a scientific description, and thus incongruous in a story about hard science. It was doubly aggravating in that it was totally irrelevant to the point of the article. Not that the article actually got around to making the interesting scientific point anyway (i.e., never actually explaining how bees fly).
I used the phrase "bring to heel" as a figure of speech, not as an analogy.
I don't think China would attack the U.S. at least not directly. Rather, I think that China would probably resort to some combination of invasion of eastern Russia (for certain resources), nuclear blackmail, and covert funding and equipping of terrorist organizations.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some combination of the latter two isn't a factor in all our current negotiations with China.
Anyway, my point is that there's been a slow but steady trend towards reform and liberalization in China, over the last couple of decades, and that that is a good thing, not to be given up lightly.
I wish it would progress faster. I wish that our economy wasn't so entangled with the Chinese economy that disentangling the two would cause hardship and suffering here, and weaken our ability to counter Chinese power in worst-case scenarios. I wish that politicians the world over weren't corrupt and incompetent in varying degrees. But one thing I don't wish for is an ill-advised drastic increase in the economic and diplomatic pressure on a populous, disgruntled, nuclear power with a key role in the global economy.
I'm curious: do you have in mind any specific examples of trade agreements with China, that if not made, would have hastened the process of human rights reforms in China, and would not have caused significant problems that, while not as bad as Chinese human rights violations, would nonetheless have required costly and time-consuming solutions we may not have had the resources to pursue?
Or are you just assuming that such cases must exist, and if we only knew about them we could put the whole situation right?
If it's the former, please share. I'd like to have some concrete data to adjust my opinions against.
If it's the latter, then by the same token shouldn't you also assume that the opposite cases exist as well; that there are many specific instances of diplomacy and economic negotiation used successfully as a tool to bring about reforms in China without causing upheaval around the world? That much of the time, the process is actually working?
On another note, how far would you go? Are you advocating nothing more than tougher negotiations? Or would you be in favor of actual sanctions? What do you think China would do, if we made a credible threat to cut off their oils supply?
Well, it would have been pretty stupid to set up a secret facility such that any asshat could land there with impunity, simply by faking mechanical difficulties with their aircraft.
Seems to me the civilian pilot community is much better off being absolutely clear that Area 51 isn't an option, and getting in the habit of having other contingency plans besides landing at Groom Lake.
All the action is in drones these days, and R&D is humming along quite nicely in that area.
Besides, the problem space for new military technology keeps changing. High altitude stealth reconnaissance planes were important for a time. Now we get better results from satellites in most cases. Also, as technology becomes more mainstream, radical new R&D programs in that field become less necessary. It's more cost effective to make the last generation of exotic technology a standard feature of this generation's off-the-shelf weapons system.
Anyway, the big problem space for military R&D right now seems to be in the field of automation. You shouldn't have to look to hard to find lots of really interesting information about all the exciting new developments just in the past few years, in that field.
Actually, the government excels at keeping secrets. For example, you obviously have no clue that the government revealed the existence of Area 51 on purpose, in order to deflect attention from their real secret research facilities.
If they're asking that question, it's reasonable to assume the same question was asked about them during their own background checks, back when they first applied for the job.
Hopefully, since they got hired, their background check interviewees thought the question through carefully and answered honestly "yes", rather than being flippant smartasses.
On the other hand, this story is proof that America really is a democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people: A flippant, smartass citizenry produces flippant smartass FBI agents, while a thoughtful, sincere citizenry would produce thoughtful, sincere FBI agents.
I mean, sure, your girlfriend doesn't get to personally approve of every FBI agent out there, but every FBI agent on the force had to be approved by some citizens, somewhere.
Thus, the quality of our FBI agents reflects the values and concerns of our citizenry as a whole. How cool is that?
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Hitler's policy was to take Germany to war at the earliest possible moment, and to exploit every attempt at peace by his neighbors to strengthen his war machine for the violent conflict he envisioned.
Are you saying China is doing the same thing now?
The alternative to appeasing Hitler in the late 30s would have been to isolate Hitler in the late 30s. Winston Churchill found a lot to commend this course of action, as he believed that at that time Germany was too weak to respond to isolation by going to war, and that a stern rebuke in 1938 would have prevented the whole horrible disaster altogether.
Are you saying that China, equipped modern military technology and infrastructure, boasting the manpower to stand up the largest army in the world, and armed with nuclear weapons, is in a similarly weak position, such that a stern rebuke and a policy of economic isolation would bring them rapidly to heel, rather than sparking a world war?
Chamberlain sincerely believed that taking a hard line with Germany in the '30s would lead to a violent and bloody conflict that the people of Europe did not have the stomach for (Hitler exploited this sentiment, especially in war-ravaged France, to great effect).
Are you saying that you, today, do have the stomach for war with China? That the people of China (who would probably be slaughtered in the millions during such a war) would be better off if we isolated China right now?
It is my view that Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler was needless, as Germany was not a power in 1938, and Hitler was on the verge of being ousted by calmer heads in the German power structure anyway at that time.
It is my view that "appeasement" of China is needful, as China is now a power in both conventional arms and nuclear weapons, its ruling cabal is not currently teetering on the verge of a coup by more tractable elements in the regime, and its position in the world is much more influential and disruptive than Germany's was at the time. I also think that China, far from being ruled by a megalomaniac bent on world domination, is ruled by a cabal of old men who have a vested interest in the status quo. Rather than planning a violent takeover of the entire world, I believe they're much more interested in maintaining their control over a stable and subservient populace. This means, in practical terms, that their best course of action is to ease in the freedoms that their people hunger for, but not so quickly as to undermine their own power base. Thus, pressuring them to pursue this course as quickly as possible is a good idea, while forcing them to consider other options such as crackdowns and wars of agression for resources, is a bad idea.
Of course, I could be just as wrong as Chamberlain was. I doubt it, though, given the extreme nature of the differences between the two scenarios.
What do you think?
Yet the whole idea of metaphysics seems pretty interesting, when you sit down and think about it.
And that's all religion is, really: applied metaphysics.
I honestly don't understand either why some people insist that metaphysics and physics should not be complementary, or why other people insist that physics is a proper tool for studying metaphysics.
What if I assume there's a finite amount of information, and that one of the reasons it's finite is that it isn't being stored (e.g., that when the universe runs out of storage space, it deletes stale data)?
So Altshuler claims, without any supporting evidence, that unnamed "people" in the undefined "ID community" make a big deal out of the unknowability of bee flight mechanics, and that having disproved this unkowability, he's successfully countered their alleged arugment?
Wow.
Also, is it just me, or does the article not actually explain how bees fly?
As far as I can tell, this article tells us three things:
1. That bee flight is exotic. (Which is pretty much a tautology; if bee flight were mundane, we would have figured it out a long time ago.)
2. That we learn more about bee flight by using robots with force sensors than we do using fixed-wing aerodynamic theory.
3. That however bees fly, they have to work harder at it in thinner atmosphere, and that it involves amplitude increases rather than frequency increases.
Which all means what, exactly?
You'd think that an article about how we've finally discovered the secret of bee flight would spend rather more time explaining it, and rather less time on such non-newsworthy aspects of the story such as what the researcher believes the current state of play in the ID debate is.
I mean, bees flying! A mystery that has eluded smarty men for a hundred years or more! Finally solved! And nothing in the article actually approaches a description of the solution.
China has the power to plunge the world into violent chaos, if it does not get its way, and if its needs are not met.
What would you have the U.S. government do? Forsake peace and prosperity and an incremental approach to reforming China, in favor of cutting them off, putting their backs against a wall, and taking us all straight to World War IV?
I mean, it's an option, of course. Is it your option?
The fact is, China has been reforming incrementally even since before Tiananmen Square. They know what's going on. A lot of their policy is guided by a desire to meet their citizens' growing demands for freedom without plunging the country into the state of mafia-ruled anarchy that plagues the former Soviet Union today. They've learned a lot from Russia's rush to reform. The main lesson being: take it slow.
I think a lot of their current crackdown on the Internet has to do with limiting their people's access to outside information that will whet their appetite for reforms: An appetite that cannot be swiftly fed, and that, once awakened will lead to violent uprisings if not immediately sated.
I dunno. Maybe violent uprisings are the answer. And it's certain the people in power in China have their own best interests at heart, with the incremental approach.
But I ask you, what would you do? Would you rather put China in a position where they have nothing to lose? That leads to war--nuclear war, most likely. Or would you rather use international commerce as a tool for applying both carrots and sticks to China, to encourage them to join the free world at their own pace, but join it nonetheless?
If China was still relatively powerless (like, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq), then I'd be all about a forcible regime change, and the sooner the better.
But they're not.
The fact is, you have no idea what kind of pressure is really being brought to bear on the Chinese government. You have no idea what kinds of things get discussed in those trade negotiations. You have no idea what kinds of factors come into play, that might influence Chinese government policy on a broad spectrum, as a result of engaging with them economically instead of isolating them.
And you obviously have no idea what the potential ramifications of an isolationist policy with regard to China would be.
Or do you? Maybe I have you all wrong, and you're some kind of expert Far East Asia SocioPolitial Analyst, who has it all figured out. If so, please point us to your scholarly papers, detailed analysis, and/or personal blog full of insightful commentary on the subject. Enlighten us, please: how do we go about isolating China to force a faster rate of reform, without forcing them into war, instead? In what material way would it differ in appearance from what the western powers are doing right now? Don't forget to account for all the other constraints, influences, boundaries, and assorted limitations that western politicians must work within, in order to bring this peaceful reform of China about (including, of course, the sad fact of human weakness both in elected officials and in the masses that elect them).
The thing about death is, the only thing you can do about it is laugh.
It's inevitable. What are you going to do? Spend your time moping about the end in store for you? Or live your life with verve and panache?
"Was he inspired by the Rage cover"? Good stuff.
Almost as good as that Fark p-shop showing the Vietnamese general holding a Starbucks coffee mug to the head of a captured Viet Cong guerrilla. That was comedy gold.
If Chinese "students and intellectuals" are relying on Wikipedia for information and research, I don't think the U.S. has much to worry about.
There are too many problems with your statement.
For one thing, it's in the form of the classic "friend of a friend" urban myth.
For another thing, of course that's what a responsible Area 51 staffer would say, whether it was true or not.
For another thing, it's entirely possible that the alleged staffer was not cleared to know about the non-man-made things that may or may not be there, and so may not actually know what he's talking about.
Which would be a civil suit? Preventing UPS drivers from completing their rounds and thus costing the company money and possibly putting it in breach of contract with its customers? I'd wager that's a criminal offense.
Obstructing the local Sheriff's department? Again, probably gonna be a criminal offense.
I'm not sure you can interfere with legitimate government business and have it be a civil suit kinda thing, really. Messing with the government tends to be a criminal thing, every time.
Our law has always made a clear and intuitive distinction between unfortunate accidents of varying degrees and actions take with intent to bring harm.
You would make an exception for DDOS attacks that is not made anywhere else in our criminal code.
So DDOS attacks aren't crimes?
Does the Bill of Rights also invalidate all those convictions of "obstruction of justice" that have been handed down over the years?
Since when is encouraging people to participate in a DDOS attack on a government server, for the purpose of preventing that server from performing its intended function, not a crime?
Heh.
Sounds like the kid was actually busted for encouraging people to wilfully impede the operations of a legitimate government enterprise.
If he'd encouraged his fellow to cut off UPS trucks and drive real slow, to prevent them from completing their rounds on time, UPS would sue, and with good reason.
If he'd encouraged his classmates to camp out in front of the Sherrif's intake gate at the local courthouse, for the purpose of inhibiting the in-processing of prisoners for their trials, he'd be arrested for sure, and probably not on a misdemeanor count, either.
This isn't "felony for refreshing a webpage" at all. It's "felony for promoting the wilful obstruction of the government in the discharge of its obligations to its citizens". Seems about right to me.