I'm just saying I can relax better in my own space.
Fair enough, and so can I. My question is, how much of this is habituation with what is actually a second-rate work process?
I mean, what if "only works well alone and in silence" is an evolutionary dead-end? What if, in the long run, people who become habituated to working in physical proximity to each other, and companies that become adept at building teams that enhance each team member's cognition under those conditions, will be more productive and more successful?
All the colloborative software in the world is no substitute for regular human contact. Rather, it inserts several layers of indirection and buffering where direct contact may actually be more desireable.
Like I said, I don't doubt you work better in private. but what if this is actually a bad habit, rather than a good one? Google seems to be attributing the value of its employee contributions in part to their assumption that it's a bad habit. Given the success of Google employee contributions, I'm willing to take wait-and-see approach.
If you have a good work ethic, this doesn't insult it in the slightest.
On the one hand, if you don't have a good work ethic, this will improve your performance (or else make your uselessness readily apparent, which is a net win for your employer).
On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for the theory that even the best workers generally perform even better when working in close concert with their peers.
I mean, hey, if you can convince your employer that you're one of those rare types whose work is so seriously genius-level that you really do need the prima donna treatment, great! I hope it works out well for you.
But I strongly suspect that even then, a company like Google might still see more benefits to the "teambuilt" solutions than the "solo genius" solutions, and decline to accomodate (or even hire) you.
Another factor to consider is that American culture sometimes overdoes the Individuialistic Ideal, to the point where American society in many places seems to be losing the knack of living in community. What if the idea of the Lone Programmer is a myth, or at least a counter-productive approach in the long run?
What if community-based work processes founded on actual physical interpersonal contact, daily, with your peers and teammates, are the key to future innovation, wealth creation, and all those other things that make up our collective vision of Better Tomorrow?
Google seems to think that for them, at least, this is certainly the case.
I feel like I missed an exchange. What does the "woth" (worth?) of reality have to do with the moral teachings of biology textbooks?
Seriously, what moral teachings do you get from biology textbooks? In what way do you find them superior to the moral teachings of the religious orders?
Liber Al: But who will determine what goes in the xxx domain? Who's going to define "porn"? People might start censoring things that aren't really porn! It disrupts the very foundations of Free Speech! It can't be allowed!
Ironically, this is also a traditional line of reasoning among conservatives, who use it to oppose liberal advocates of larger government programs in all areas.
Also ironically, we already censor pornography, through government coercion, on television all the time. And yet there doesn't seem to have been much of a slide down any slippery slope in prime time network programming, has there?
I dealt with the clunky scripts, especially in Season 1, by assuming that the story was being told after the fact, in a bar, by one of the characters, exaggerrated for comic or dramatic effect.
I.e., the scene didn't really go down that way, that's just the way Garibaldi tells the story of that scene in the bar the next day.
Really? It seems to me that if I'm paying you to transfer my content faster, then I'm the client, and you're the provider. You know, on account of me paying you money, and you providing a service and all.
Or when I go to my ISP, I could pay more for more bandwidth.
Or when I go to my hosting provider, I could pay more for additional servers and storage.
What?
Did you think that the solution to slashdotting was for everybody to be guaranteed the same amount of high-end CPU cycles on state-of-the-art servers?
People can already buy their way onto the backbone; I used to work for a company that did just that: invest in direct backbone links and then sell rackspace in their datacenters at a premium to those that wanted (and could afford) it.
I guess I'm not clear on exactly how this is any different.
Good old Slashdot. "We should be allowed to do anything we want, but everybody else has to do things exactly the way we like it."
Anime is already mainstream. It's just that the anime and manga economy in japan is based on the perception of hundreds of different major target demographics, with thousands of overlapping combinations. And each one of these has it's own dedicated product stream.
There are "main streams" of manga and anime for every conceivable taste and genre. I predict that, far from all Japanese anime producers converting to a single American "mainstream" genre, American consumers will discover that there's a main stream of Japanese anime already tailored to their particular tastes. That's been my experience, anyway.
I mean, why are they gonna change for me, when they're already producing all the Dangerously Gay Vampire Cyberpunk Sci-Fi Tentacle Futa Fairy Tales I could ever need? This gaijin's revenue stream is guaranteed, and they didn't have to change a damn thing for me. I suspect, from the offerings at my local chain bookstore these days, that the same is true for every other American in the tri-state area (although I have to say, y'all everybody have some lame-ass taste in manga these days; I swear I reject 1000x more manga than I ever bother to read--even so, I'm sitting pretty).
Rhinos and Elephants rampage for fun, killing lesser creatures without effort or thought.
Recently in South Africa, a Baboon snatched a human child out of its mother's arms, took it to the top of a nearby power pole, and ate its brains. Seriously.
Monkeys often persecute and kill outcasts in their tribe.
Lions and Dolphins, among others, murder young not their own.
To all these actions we ascribe "natural" and "healthy" instinctive motivations. Yet we hesitate to ascribe such motives to our own. Why is that? We don't call it gratuitous when a Shark does it. Why call it gratuitous when a Human does it?
Is it because Humans don't feel like they have a good reason for their killing? Why should that be? Why should Humans, so obsessed with ascribing reasons to everything else, be so completely unable to come up with good reasons for their own actions?
Either Humans do have good reasons, just like every other creature in the evolved order of things, in which case the question is "why don't we feel and understand our reasons?". Or else Humans alone of all the animals have no reasons at all for what they do, in which case the question is "why should Humans alone of all the animals have no natural purpose to their lives?"
Why is it natural for infant hyenas to spend their first days of life trying to kill their litter-mates, but when humans indulge in killing sprees we call it murder?
I'm not disputing anything you say, except that "violent" is a relative term. Humans are no more violent than hawks, or bears, or rhinoceroses, or elephants, or even dolphins.
What is different about humans, apparently, is our sense of shame about our violence. Humans seem to be alone among all creatures in believing they are out of place in the evolved order. Humans alone seem to regret doing what all other animals do instinctively, without remorse.
The reason I'm not offering anything useful is because I'm not sure there is anything useful to offer, except more of the same: free societies struggling to resolve complicated issues in a more-or-less democractic manner.
But a lot of people seem to be disgruntled by this process and its outcomes. I was kind of hoping you would have something useful to offer.
I mean, I'm suggesting that for all its mistakes, flaws, and slippery-slope risks, some amount of government interference in aviation security and the right of citizens to travel freely is actually a good thing. At the very least, it's the lesser of two evils.
If you think that there's a lack of balance in the TSA's current solutions, what do you suggest? What security measures do you think would work better than these, and would you willingly grant the government the authority to implement such measures?
It's true, I'm not offering answers, only questions. What about you? Do you have any answers to my questions, or are you just as lost as I am? If you know where the value lies (and you seem pretty sure it doesn't lie with me), how about sharing it around a bit?
See, I think the current solution is about as good as it gets, and that it's pretty damn good, all things considered. I also think it's getting better all the time. You seem to disagree. So then: what alternative are you offering?
I never said that I was willing to let the government run my life.
I asked what is a reasonable limit on government interference, in the context of this debate.
Whether or not the current security measures work is a different question entirely, and also well worth debating.
So let's assume for a moment that the current security measures do work perfectly (I agree with you; they don't, but let's assume just for a moment). Would you approve of this level of compromise between personal liberty and government interference?
Would you want more?
Less?
How much less?
Why?
Would total anarchy make you more safe or less safe? More or less safe from warlords? More or less safe from multinational corporations? How much government interference would be ideal, in your opinion? Enough to implement security measures that work? Enough to implement security measures that don't work?
It's not people like me who are the problem, it's people like you, who refuse to give up government entirely(sorry, that may not be true; are you posting from sub-Saharan Africa?), but also refuse to admit that some amount of government is a good thing.
And this is why you have no useful answers at all to the questions "what amount of government is ideal?" and "what amount of government is practical?"
There has to be limits concerning the governments rights over the individual. Somewhere, in our all-encompassing praise of democracy, we forgot this.
I haven't forgotten anything. But I am interested in figuring out exactly what those limits should be.
Too bad half the people involved in the debate can't seem to get past "OMGWTFBBQ compromise si teh fascistismness!!!eleven!" Even as you approvingly quote the guy saying there must be limits to government authority, you steadfastly refuse to admit that "limits" means "some government authority, but not too much". No wonder you can't come up with any reasonable answers to what those limits should be.
You're talking about the deprivation of personal liberties by propaganda-wielding governments, right?
Either that or he's talking about the deprivation of human life by personal liberty-abusing militans.
I find it hilarious that so many people are willing to go completely ballistic over the potential drawbacks to exchanging some amount of personal liberty for greater personal security, but are totally unwilling to even consider the potential drawbacks of exchanging some amount of personal security for greater personal liberty.
The slippery slope goes both ways, you know. On 9/11, it became pretty obvious that maybe the ideal compromise point needed to be adjusted in the direction of increased security. Tell us: what do you believe would be the ideal compromise-point? How would you solve the TSA's dilemma?
Assume that solving the long-term problem of "why do they hate us" will be resolved by the long-term processes of public debate, peaceful and violent revolutions, and periodic mostly-democratic elections. All you need to do right now is figure out how the TSA can best prevent more people from getting blown up by asshats along the way, while minimizing government infringements on individual rights.
So... security isn't a good cause?
And... we should just blindly assume that no sacrifice of personal convenience or liberty for securit would ever be necessary or wise?
I think there's a huge difference between the Alliance between Great Britain and the U.S., and the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" alliance with Stalin.
You seemed to be glossing over this difference (and the heinous complicity of the Stalinist regime in contributing to Hitler's war effort in the first place) with your seemingly snide "yes, Virginia" comment.
Documents of the time show quite clearly how Allied pleas for Russian cooperation fell on deaf ears, and how Stalin met the generous and costly shipments of war materiel with churlish ingratitude and ever more unrealistic demands.
The Allies desperately needed Russian participation, on their side, to win the war, and they spared no expense in buying that participation. But to say, simply, that the Soviet Union was a true friend of the other Allies paints a very misleading picture.
For one thing, it overlooks the sad, shameful fact that the Russian casualties were so high not because Stalin wished to save Europe from Hitler's scourge, but because Stalin was forced to pay for his shortsighted and selfish cooperation with Hitler using millions of Russian lives as his currency.
Had Stalin stepped up when urged to do so, in 1937 and earlier, before the outbreak of hostilities, all those Russian deaths might well have been avoided, and many more besides. And what did he buy with those deaths? Freedom for his people? Maybe freedom from Nazi rule, but not freedom from Communist rule. And not freedom for Eastern Europe, but rather decades of ruination for millions of people.
I see no point in comparing Russian casualties to British, American, or other Allied casualties. To me, the Russian casualties belong in their own special category, as a disgusting reminder of the consequences of Stalin's willingness to sell out all of Europe in exchange for a piece of Hitler's pie.
It was good fortune, not good will, that brought Russia to the Allied side.
I'd say that any government whose economy comes to rely heavily on a resource has a responsibility to its citizens to make sure that that resource is safe.
And I'd say that a government has a responsibility to its citizens to make them reliant on a resource that government does not control.
Actually, the Commie Pinko Russkies were on the Axis side, right up to the point where Nazi Germany betrayed their alliance and attacked them by surprise.
Only then did they begin importuning the struggling, stretched-thin Allies with constant demands for ever more resources, without ever showing any sign of gratitude or understanding of the Allied predicament. To their credit, the Allies gave all that they could, and left their own reserves dangerously low, in order to keep Russia in the war and on their side.
I'll repeat this, so we're clear: Stalin and Hitler were allies, right up until the very day that Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back.
So no, Virginia, the Commie Pinko Russkies were not on the Allied side at all. They were ever on their own side, at the expense of everybody else. I'm reminded of the famous words of Winston Churchill: "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest." (from a speech broadcast on October 1, 1939). Source.
The Russians were never on the Allied side, only on their own side, and the world suffered greatly from it. First from the free hand in Europe that Stalin's complicity gave Hitler, and then again from the horrors wreaked upon Eastern Europe when the opportunistic Stalin seized a share of the spoils he himself had helped to create.
Anyway, aside from the total historical ignorance, what's your point? That the Stalinist regime wasn't actually as bad as we think? That Soviet Communism didn't actually cause as much trouble as we were led to believe? That the deaths of millions of Russians was a noble sacrifice for world good, rather than the butcher's bill come due for allowing Hitler a free hand in Europe until he was strong enough to turn eastward? That after doing Eastern Europe the great disservice of letting Nazi Germany subjugate its people, the Commie Pinko Russkies had earned the right to claim those same people and their homelands as righteous spoils of war? What, exactly, are you trying to apologize for?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just saying I can relax better in my own space.
Fair enough, and so can I. My question is, how much of this is habituation with what is actually a second-rate work process?
I mean, what if "only works well alone and in silence" is an evolutionary dead-end? What if, in the long run, people who become habituated to working in physical proximity to each other, and companies that become adept at building teams that enhance each team member's cognition under those conditions, will be more productive and more successful?
All the colloborative software in the world is no substitute for regular human contact. Rather, it inserts several layers of indirection and buffering where direct contact may actually be more desireable.
Like I said, I don't doubt you work better in private. but what if this is actually a bad habit, rather than a good one? Google seems to be attributing the value of its employee contributions in part to their assumption that it's a bad habit. Given the success of Google employee contributions, I'm willing to take wait-and-see approach.
If you have a good work ethic, this doesn't insult it in the slightest.
On the one hand, if you don't have a good work ethic, this will improve your performance (or else make your uselessness readily apparent, which is a net win for your employer).
On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for the theory that even the best workers generally perform even better when working in close concert with their peers.
I mean, hey, if you can convince your employer that you're one of those rare types whose work is so seriously genius-level that you really do need the prima donna treatment, great! I hope it works out well for you.
But I strongly suspect that even then, a company like Google might still see more benefits to the "teambuilt" solutions than the "solo genius" solutions, and decline to accomodate (or even hire) you.
Another factor to consider is that American culture sometimes overdoes the Individuialistic Ideal, to the point where American society in many places seems to be losing the knack of living in community. What if the idea of the Lone Programmer is a myth, or at least a counter-productive approach in the long run?
What if community-based work processes founded on actual physical interpersonal contact, daily, with your peers and teammates, are the key to future innovation, wealth creation, and all those other things that make up our collective vision of Better Tomorrow?
Google seems to think that for them, at least, this is certainly the case.
I feel like I missed an exchange. What does the "woth" (worth?) of reality have to do with the moral teachings of biology textbooks?
Seriously, what moral teachings do you get from biology textbooks? In what way do you find them superior to the moral teachings of the religious orders?
What do biology textbooks have to say about morality?
Except, possibly, "goodbye welfare, hello eugenics!"?
What did the Earliest Worm have?
Liber Al: But who will determine what goes in the xxx domain? Who's going to define "porn"? People might start censoring things that aren't really porn! It disrupts the very foundations of Free Speech! It can't be allowed!
Ironically, this is also a traditional line of reasoning among conservatives, who use it to oppose liberal advocates of larger government programs in all areas.
Also ironically, we already censor pornography, through government coercion, on television all the time. And yet there doesn't seem to have been much of a slide down any slippery slope in prime time network programming, has there?
I dealt with the clunky scripts, especially in Season 1, by assuming that the story was being told after the fact, in a bar, by one of the characters, exaggerrated for comic or dramatic effect.
I.e., the scene didn't really go down that way, that's just the way Garibaldi tells the story of that scene in the bar the next day.
Sliders, well everyone already knows the sliders story.
Actually, I completely missed out on Sliders. What is the "sliders story"?
Really? It seems to me that if I'm paying you to transfer my content faster, then I'm the client, and you're the provider. You know, on account of me paying you money, and you providing a service and all.
A semicolon is also not inappropriate in this context; they are legitimately used to separate clauses in a single sentence.
Can strawman arguments be presented in Socratic form?
Or when I go to my ISP, I could pay more for more bandwidth.
Or when I go to my hosting provider, I could pay more for additional servers and storage.
What?
Did you think that the solution to slashdotting was for everybody to be guaranteed the same amount of high-end CPU cycles on state-of-the-art servers?
People can already buy their way onto the backbone; I used to work for a company that did just that: invest in direct backbone links and then sell rackspace in their datacenters at a premium to those that wanted (and could afford) it.
I guess I'm not clear on exactly how this is any different.
Good old Slashdot. "We should be allowed to do anything we want, but everybody else has to do things exactly the way we like it."
Anime is already mainstream. It's just that the anime and manga economy in japan is based on the perception of hundreds of different major target demographics, with thousands of overlapping combinations. And each one of these has it's own dedicated product stream.
There are "main streams" of manga and anime for every conceivable taste and genre. I predict that, far from all Japanese anime producers converting to a single American "mainstream" genre, American consumers will discover that there's a main stream of Japanese anime already tailored to their particular tastes. That's been my experience, anyway.
I mean, why are they gonna change for me, when they're already producing all the Dangerously Gay Vampire Cyberpunk Sci-Fi Tentacle Futa Fairy Tales I could ever need? This gaijin's revenue stream is guaranteed, and they didn't have to change a damn thing for me. I suspect, from the offerings at my local chain bookstore these days, that the same is true for every other American in the tri-state area (although I have to say, y'all everybody have some lame-ass taste in manga these days; I swear I reject 1000x more manga than I ever bother to read--even so, I'm sitting pretty).
Wolverines.
Rhinos and Elephants rampage for fun, killing lesser creatures without effort or thought.
Recently in South Africa, a Baboon snatched a human child out of its mother's arms, took it to the top of a nearby power pole, and ate its brains. Seriously.
Monkeys often persecute and kill outcasts in their tribe.
Lions and Dolphins, among others, murder young not their own.
To all these actions we ascribe "natural" and "healthy" instinctive motivations. Yet we hesitate to ascribe such motives to our own. Why is that? We don't call it gratuitous when a Shark does it. Why call it gratuitous when a Human does it?
Is it because Humans don't feel like they have a good reason for their killing? Why should that be? Why should Humans, so obsessed with ascribing reasons to everything else, be so completely unable to come up with good reasons for their own actions?
Either Humans do have good reasons, just like every other creature in the evolved order of things, in which case the question is "why don't we feel and understand our reasons?". Or else Humans alone of all the animals have no reasons at all for what they do, in which case the question is "why should Humans alone of all the animals have no natural purpose to their lives?"
Why is it natural for infant hyenas to spend their first days of life trying to kill their litter-mates, but when humans indulge in killing sprees we call it murder?
I'm not disputing anything you say, except that "violent" is a relative term. Humans are no more violent than hawks, or bears, or rhinoceroses, or elephants, or even dolphins.
What is different about humans, apparently, is our sense of shame about our violence. Humans seem to be alone among all creatures in believing they are out of place in the evolved order. Humans alone seem to regret doing what all other animals do instinctively, without remorse.
And frequently, they aren't. Doesn't that make the whole thing a wash, and end up getting us no closer to a useful conclusion?
"Frequently, people make right turns at intersections."
No, the point is that not EVERY sacrifice of personal convenience or liberty for security reasons is necessary or wise.
Granted. But that doesn't get you any closer to explaining why this one in particular is or isn't.
What are you, a mediator?
Probably, by temperament.
The reason I'm not offering anything useful is because I'm not sure there is anything useful to offer, except more of the same: free societies struggling to resolve complicated issues in a more-or-less democractic manner.
But a lot of people seem to be disgruntled by this process and its outcomes. I was kind of hoping you would have something useful to offer.
I mean, I'm suggesting that for all its mistakes, flaws, and slippery-slope risks, some amount of government interference in aviation security and the right of citizens to travel freely is actually a good thing. At the very least, it's the lesser of two evils.
If you think that there's a lack of balance in the TSA's current solutions, what do you suggest? What security measures do you think would work better than these, and would you willingly grant the government the authority to implement such measures?
It's true, I'm not offering answers, only questions. What about you? Do you have any answers to my questions, or are you just as lost as I am? If you know where the value lies (and you seem pretty sure it doesn't lie with me), how about sharing it around a bit?
See, I think the current solution is about as good as it gets, and that it's pretty damn good, all things considered. I also think it's getting better all the time. You seem to disagree. So then: what alternative are you offering?
I never said that I was willing to let the government run my life.
I asked what is a reasonable limit on government interference, in the context of this debate.
Whether or not the current security measures work is a different question entirely, and also well worth debating.
So let's assume for a moment that the current security measures do work perfectly (I agree with you; they don't, but let's assume just for a moment). Would you approve of this level of compromise between personal liberty and government interference?
Would you want more?
Less?
How much less?
Why?
Would total anarchy make you more safe or less safe? More or less safe from warlords? More or less safe from multinational corporations? How much government interference would be ideal, in your opinion? Enough to implement security measures that work? Enough to implement security measures that don't work?
It's not people like me who are the problem, it's people like you, who refuse to give up government entirely(sorry, that may not be true; are you posting from sub-Saharan Africa?), but also refuse to admit that some amount of government is a good thing.
And this is why you have no useful answers at all to the questions "what amount of government is ideal?" and "what amount of government is practical?"
There has to be limits concerning the governments rights over the individual. Somewhere, in our all-encompassing praise of democracy, we forgot this.
I haven't forgotten anything. But I am interested in figuring out exactly what those limits should be.
Too bad half the people involved in the debate can't seem to get past "OMGWTFBBQ compromise si teh fascistismness!!!eleven!" Even as you approvingly quote the guy saying there must be limits to government authority, you steadfastly refuse to admit that "limits" means "some government authority, but not too much". No wonder you can't come up with any reasonable answers to what those limits should be.
You're talking about the deprivation of personal liberties by propaganda-wielding governments, right?
Either that or he's talking about the deprivation of human life by personal liberty-abusing militans.
I find it hilarious that so many people are willing to go completely ballistic over the potential drawbacks to exchanging some amount of personal liberty for greater personal security, but are totally unwilling to even consider the potential drawbacks of exchanging some amount of personal security for greater personal liberty.
The slippery slope goes both ways, you know. On 9/11, it became pretty obvious that maybe the ideal compromise point needed to be adjusted in the direction of increased security. Tell us: what do you believe would be the ideal compromise-point? How would you solve the TSA's dilemma?
Assume that solving the long-term problem of "why do they hate us" will be resolved by the long-term processes of public debate, peaceful and violent revolutions, and periodic mostly-democratic elections. All you need to do right now is figure out how the TSA can best prevent more people from getting blown up by asshats along the way, while minimizing government infringements on individual rights.
Ready?
Go!
So... security isn't a good cause? And... we should just blindly assume that no sacrifice of personal convenience or liberty for securit would ever be necessary or wise?
I think there's a huge difference between the Alliance between Great Britain and the U.S., and the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" alliance with Stalin.
You seemed to be glossing over this difference (and the heinous complicity of the Stalinist regime in contributing to Hitler's war effort in the first place) with your seemingly snide "yes, Virginia" comment.
Documents of the time show quite clearly how Allied pleas for Russian cooperation fell on deaf ears, and how Stalin met the generous and costly shipments of war materiel with churlish ingratitude and ever more unrealistic demands.
The Allies desperately needed Russian participation, on their side, to win the war, and they spared no expense in buying that participation. But to say, simply, that the Soviet Union was a true friend of the other Allies paints a very misleading picture.
For one thing, it overlooks the sad, shameful fact that the Russian casualties were so high not because Stalin wished to save Europe from Hitler's scourge, but because Stalin was forced to pay for his shortsighted and selfish cooperation with Hitler using millions of Russian lives as his currency.
Had Stalin stepped up when urged to do so, in 1937 and earlier, before the outbreak of hostilities, all those Russian deaths might well have been avoided, and many more besides. And what did he buy with those deaths? Freedom for his people? Maybe freedom from Nazi rule, but not freedom from Communist rule. And not freedom for Eastern Europe, but rather decades of ruination for millions of people.
I see no point in comparing Russian casualties to British, American, or other Allied casualties. To me, the Russian casualties belong in their own special category, as a disgusting reminder of the consequences of Stalin's willingness to sell out all of Europe in exchange for a piece of Hitler's pie.
It was good fortune, not good will, that brought Russia to the Allied side.
I'd say that any government whose economy comes to rely heavily on a resource has a responsibility to its citizens to make sure that that resource is safe.
And I'd say that a government has a responsibility to its citizens to make them reliant on a resource that government does not control.
Actually, the Commie Pinko Russkies were on the Axis side, right up to the point where Nazi Germany betrayed their alliance and attacked them by surprise.
Only then did they begin importuning the struggling, stretched-thin Allies with constant demands for ever more resources, without ever showing any sign of gratitude or understanding of the Allied predicament. To their credit, the Allies gave all that they could, and left their own reserves dangerously low, in order to keep Russia in the war and on their side.
I'll repeat this, so we're clear: Stalin and Hitler were allies, right up until the very day that Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back.
So no, Virginia, the Commie Pinko Russkies were not on the Allied side at all. They were ever on their own side, at the expense of everybody else. I'm reminded of the famous words of Winston Churchill: "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest." (from a speech broadcast on October 1, 1939). Source.
The Russians were never on the Allied side, only on their own side, and the world suffered greatly from it. First from the free hand in Europe that Stalin's complicity gave Hitler, and then again from the horrors wreaked upon Eastern Europe when the opportunistic Stalin seized a share of the spoils he himself had helped to create.
Anyway, aside from the total historical ignorance, what's your point? That the Stalinist regime wasn't actually as bad as we think? That Soviet Communism didn't actually cause as much trouble as we were led to believe? That the deaths of millions of Russians was a noble sacrifice for world good, rather than the butcher's bill come due for allowing Hitler a free hand in Europe until he was strong enough to turn eastward? That after doing Eastern Europe the great disservice of letting Nazi Germany subjugate its people, the Commie Pinko Russkies had earned the right to claim those same people and their homelands as righteous spoils of war? What, exactly, are you trying to apologize for?