I've been meaning to get back into recording, but ardour has been putting me off it for years. Perhaps the Ubuntu team will dig out something that doesn't require the user to script stuff to get going. I've been meaning to check out Beast ( http://beast.gtk.org ) but haven't gotten around to it yet.
Anyone got any other good audio apps.
As for the comment I see about no good video editing apps, I've had marvelous success with kino. I did a documentary on a Stop Bush demo when the bastard came to Canberra. It doesn't have as many flashy looking transitions as iMovie ( which is admittedly the only other video editor I've used ), but on the plus side, it doesn't have horrible cut & paste bugs and crashes and other bullshit that iMovie has.
No I didn't realise that this was a Democrats bill. That makes it even worse. It would be bad enough if the conservatives were pushing this, but for the so-called liberal democrats to be pushing this, it really is a sign of high far things have gone.
And as for the 'return of fascism', I was talking about a return generally ( as in from it's 'high' point in Germany ).
The people are willing, but our governments are not.
I have long argued that the drug companies should be sidelined in favour of public money ( and lots of it ) being invested into medical research, with the benefits enjoyed by all. The problem is that the pharmecutical industry is incredibly powerful ( and rich ), and prevent our governments from performing any public research, insisting that the 'market will provide'. This story points out the bullshit level in this case. The market does not provide anything for society other than those things which make the most profits for market players. If we want the best possible medical technology, and for it to be accessible by all people and not just those with the cash, then we need to have massive public investment, and also consider specifically excluding medical technology from patent law.
What a joke. Anyone who doesn't see the imminent return of fascism in the US is clearly blind. Is there anyone alive who thinks that this will not be used to persecute critics of government policy. And Christ knows there is enough to criticize these days. The most cynical aspect, though, is that the US claims to be the champion of democracy! I sure don't want that kind of democracy here, and I'm damned sure the Iraqis / Afghanis / [ insert current axis-of-evil member here ] don't want this kind of democracy either.
Someone, for the love of God, impeach the bastard!
Can you tell the difference between democracy and theocracy?
Yes. But the problem is that this is NOT a group of people pushing for a fundamentalist Islamic state. They're a bunch of people, who happen to be Islamic, yes, who are pushing for democracy. They're secular. Sure their culture etc has an Islamic slant. Why shouldn't it? The mainstream media is all too quick to brand them as "Islamists", when in fact this is not the key defining factor. They are a grass-roots democracy movement. Hence the US backing of Ethiopian attacks on them.
It is a know fact in economy that the Ricardo's theory of value (that was used by Marx) is inconsistent with reality
Oh come on! Marx arrived at his theory independently. And simply saying that it's "inconsistent with reality" is a pretty lame cop-out. What, exactly, doesn't match with your reality? Do you suggest that some money is being created somewhere outside the production process, that the capitalist is somehow tapping into without input from the workers? I responded to your post with a thoughtful reply, and this is all you can muster? I put it to you again that you've never read Marx, and have no idea what you're talking about, other than what you see on Fox News, of course.
If you had read Marx as you've now claimed, you'd see the validity in what he pointed about about the nature of the capitalist system, and how it keeps itself entrenched. For example:
- capitalists employ workers, but pay them less than their work is worth - the difference between what workers are paid and what their work is worth is capitalist profit - capitalist profits are used to buy capital ( equipment ) - increasing cost of capital acts as a barrier to entry - private ownership of capital prevents workers from being independent ( locks workers to capitalists )
When Marx wrote on these topics, he was very much ahead of his time - many say over 100 years. Capitalism was only just beginning to demonstrate these properties. Now, his theories not only still fit with reality, but actually fit more so. Private ownership of the means of production is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and real wages in all industrialised countries is dropping. Barriers to competition are far larger than Marx ever saw ( but not envisioned ).
None of Marx's works have been 'discredited', despite the one-line, throw-away attacks from the mainstream media. The only 'serious' attack on Marx's theory goes along the line that "it's been tried before and didn't work". But any serious discussion of examples where it's been tried before must also discuss the reaction of the capitalist powers. Take the US attack on the Bolshevik revolution. Or the constant war with the developing South American nations, who are pushing for a socialist society. Or the attack on the Vietnamese revolution. Or the murder of over 1,000,000 communists and supporters in Indonesia as Suharto came to power. Or the current attacks on Somalia ( here the democracy movements are being branded 'Islamists', as if that's some kind of disease ). There are literally hundreds of examples of social upheavals where the capitalist powers step in and crush the movement, in case it forms a stable example of a different kind of society for the world to consider.
The only reason China, Russia and North Korea are allowed to continue their form of society is precisely because they are not communist.
Interestingly, 'Halliburton' hasn't kept me from making as much money as I could find a way to make. Usually, it's the state or federal gov't that impacts my income flow.
Well firstly, they have, in a number of ways. A lot of your tax dollars go to Halliburton, supposedly to 'reconstruct' Iraq, but inevitably none of it gets through. So they're a large sponge on the public purse.
Secondly, Halliburton have a horrible record of being being state persecution of people who are critical of them. Google for 'Scott Parkin'. He was arrested here in Australia on 'terrorist' charges ( all secret stuff, so that's about all we know ), and deported back to the US. He's a UN anti-war, anti-Halliburton activist. He's been constantly persecuted in the US over his criticism of their questionable ( even by US standards ) behaviour.
Thirdly, Halliburton are obviously strong backers of the neo-cons. Their agenda is to drive down wages to increase profits for big business. They argue for 'free market' economies, which basically means removing all tarrifs and barriers to trade, so that you are competing directly with slave-labour wages in 3rd world countries.
Of course, Halliburton aren't opposed to you making money the same way that they do. But try to make money the honest way - as a worker - and you'll find it's a different story entirely.
Russia under Lenin was actually quite good compared to what it replaced. Lenin delivered many reforms that improved the conditions of millions of people in Russia. Unfortunately every other country then turned around and attacked Russia, undermining the revolution, and eventually killing Lenin.
What Stalin did with Russia has nothing to do with what Lenin and the early Bolsheviks wanted, and also has nothing to do with what socialists are fighting for now. Stalin was a dictator. The state that he run was much closer to State Capitalism than communism. You can't blame socialists worldwide, and socialist theory generally, for what Stalin did.
China: Mao
Also State Capitalism. Just because the West calls China a communist state, doesn't make it so. China is very close to Stalinist Russia. The Chinese 'revolution' didn't involve the working class at all - it was merely a change of the ruling class, with no mass participation at all.
Cambodia: Pol Pot
Pol Pot was a lunatic dictator. His rhetoric at the time was strongly anti-capitalist, largely because the US was bombing the Christ of out Cambodia. But apart from criticising capitalism, there was nothing communist about Pol Pot's Cambodia.
If you want to see some real examples of people working towards a communist society, have a look at the revolution sweeping South America. If you are an American citizen, you will know nothing of it, so search on the internet for alternative media reports. In particular, search for Bolivia and Venusualia. While both countries have their issues, they are at least pushing foward in the right direction - nationalising industries and using the profits to subsidise health care an education, etc.
Perhaps the author of the parent should pull his head out of his ass.
I contest that it is YOU who has their head up their arse for this statement. And 'arse' is spelt 'arse', not 'ass'. You're an American, aren't you? Nice education system.
Perhaps the author of the parent needs to find one case where Marxism did not lead inexorably to dictatorship.
I just have you 2. And you can't prove that communism leads to dictatorship by induction. It doesn't work like that. If it did, then I could prove that capitalism also leads to dictatorship.
Then, if he hasn't killed himself over wasting his life believing in fairy tales, he should try to figure out why Marxism leads inevitably to dictatorship.
You should grow up, hold back on the childish insults, and try to education yourself somewhat. Every time you open your mouth, you demonstrate everything that is wrong with the society you live in. You have no ideas of your own, and no respect for other people's ideas, even in situations where you clearly have no experience. Only in America...
Interesting assertion. You don't back it up with anything though. I say you're way off, and just repeating bullshit that you've heard elsewhere. It's not your fault. You probably don't even realise you're doing it.
This is because Marx had this stupid idea of condoning or even encouraging violence as the way to achieve Communism.
Well firstly, Marx didn't condone violence. He provided an analysis of capitalism, and argued that the working class must fight to liberate themselves from the ruling class. The nature of the struggle depends on the nature of the ruling class, and unfortunately the ruling class won't just stand aside and take default gracefully. It is widely recognised that violence is justified if it leads to self-emancipation.
So when you have a "Communist" Revolution ala Marx, guess who ends up becoming leader of the country?
Someone else for once?
The one who was willing AND able to exert the most violence.
Not necessarily. This is what happens if there is no party able to inspire and lead the masses forward - a power vacuum exists and is filled by violent people. Yes. But it's not the only way things can play out, and you'd like us to believe.
The rest of your comments don't really deserve comment. You should do some reading on Marxism instead of parroting Fox News and the neo-cons.
Money is not zero-sum, just because some CEO gets a lot of money doesn't mean I get less.
Yes it does. If you're only talking about a small difference, this assertion stands up. But when you're talking about executive salaries and these ridiculous bonuses, then this about of money puts them into a different class than the rest of us... the ruling class. One problem with that is that the ruling class don't act very democratically. Another problem is that the ruling class... the capitalists... use their capital to control production and therefore our wages. And let me tell you now... they want nothing more than our wages to at the subsistence level.
If there were perfect equality then there would be no incentive for anybody to make any progress at all.
Don't change the subject. This article is not about absolute equality as much as about relative equality. We don't have either at the moment. No-one is arguing for absolute equality.
Correlations don't prove cause-effect relations.
Sounds like the 'defense' put up by the tobacco companies, McDonalds, etc. Sure, correlations don't prove cause-effect relations in the mathematical sense of the word 'prove'. But most people are happy with statistical proof. In this case, I'm one of them.
The results are highly selective and not an indicator of good/bad on a whole.
Oh, you're clutching at straws now.
Even if more crime does result, many other good things may also result as well.
Such as? You mean stuff like yatchs, bentleys, and other important stuff, right? Oh, and we'll just sweep the crime under the carpet. Good plan.
That's not entirely accurate, and not a fair comparison. When a corporation drops support of their product in a binary-only driver, that's the end of the story. When an open-source driver 'drops' support of a product, what they're doing is failing to maintain support. Other people are free to pick up the slack. If a device was supported by open-source software at one point, getting that support up-to-date is far easier than, say, starting from scratch.
And unless you're a kernel module developer, you're just as much at the mercy of others as you are with a binary driver from the manufacturer.
Not really. This story demonstrates that if there is sufficient demand for an open-source driver, it's quite easy to raise enough funds to hire a developer to bring an open-source driver up-to-date... which again, is a different beast entirely from hiring a developer to start from scratch.
And unless you're a kernel module developer, you're just as much at the mercy of others as you are with a binary driver from the manufacturer.
Not at all. There's a big difference between an excuse and the real reasoning here. What nVidia and ATI are basically saying is that they can't give out documentation on programming the hardware... register details, setting up DMA, basically talking to the card. This is absolute bullshit. They might be right when they say that they can't open-source their software, because, as they say, some of their software... ie their OpenGL implementation and other tricks, are legally bound. Fair enough. But no-one is asking them to open-source their drivers. We're asking them to release enough information for developers to write their own drivers. There are no legal issues involved here.
The real reason nVidia and ATI won't release any information for developers is that they see the emergence of high quality, high performance, feature rich, open-source drivers as a threat to their profits. If, for example, Intel can leverage the Xorg / DRI environment ( not to mention developers ), then it means their unit costs are considerably lower than if they have to screw around with writing everything themselves, and sign expensive licensing deals to make use of other people's OpenGL implementation. Intel isn't the only competitor here. Any upstart can make some hardware, hand the open-source community the documentation they need, and guess what... pretty soon someone has written some drivers for them. And they're fast, feature rich, etc, etc. This is what ATI and nVidia don't want. They have spent millions on their own drivers, and they must protect that investment. There are no legal reasons preventing them from sharing developer documentation with open-source developers.
I believe Intel has patents on certain memory bus related technologies which are used by both nVidia and Ati.
Yes, but that patent covers the hardware, not the interface to talk to the hardware.
Very:) It's based on my own Axis modules. You can see a screenshot of the application under the 'screenshots' link for the 'forms' ( or Gtk2::Ex::DBI ) module.
As for the double-clicking thing - yeah this is no problem here. The datasheet ( or treeview, in Gtk2 speak ) is in read-only mode, and there is no action associated with single-clicking.
There are a lot of 'black holes' other than these 2 wars. The CIA's budget is separate, and itself is broken into visible and hidden components.
NASA's budget is separate, and while previously you might have gotten away with arguing that NASA is about science, under Bush, NASA is about finding new ways of delivering WOMD...not to mention channeling funds to Bush's buddies in the weapons manufacturing business ( Northrop Gunman, Boeing etc ).
Then there's the 'war on terror', which also has a plethora of it's own visible and hidden components, all basically coming down to an increase in the police state.
These are 3 direct examples off the top of my head. Then there's the more blurred areas such as:
- the US directly employing private 'security contractors' - the US giving trade concessions, aid, loans and other incentives to countries who sign up to their military adventures - basically another way of subcontracting their wars
Though I haven't been motivated to actually add everything up, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US spend close to 50% of it's GDP on war. Why do you think health care, social security, and public education is so embarrassingly gutted in the US? Compare the situation there to here in Australia. Our public health system is certainly underfunded, with an acute lack of nurses, etc, but at least people can actually get access to health care... after a long wait. At least here when you've been 'structurally adjusted' out of a job, you can fall back on social security and not have to turn to selling drugs or theft to get by. And at the moment ( though this is on it's way out ), at least you can get public education that can propel you into a profession other than selling French fries ( sorry... Freedom Fries ). The secret is that our military budget isn't yet the runaway train that the US's has become.
I have an in-house CRM application built on Gtk2-Perl. One of the tabs shows customers' locations, and details of energy accounts and telecommunications accounts ( which we analyse data for ). You can double-click in an account number to open more information on consumption. For each account that has data, the account number is highlighted blue. At the bottom on the tab page, there is a bold, blue, italic notice telling people to double-click in a record to see consumption data for the location ( in both energy and telecommunication tabs ). There is also a tooltip when you hover over the treeview. Lastly, this is exactly how our legacy application, which we just retired, worked.
So. How many people realise you can open consumption data by double-clicking in a location? Fucking NONE OF THEM! They all bitch and moan that they "don't have access to that now", purely on the basis that I haven't held their hand and double-clicked for them.
So, what's the plan? Do we hold off on diplomatically confronting them until North Korea has a nuclear weapon small enough to fit on their missile platforms or until a "nuclear fizzle" happens on Seoul?
Merely stating that this is North Korea's intention doesn't make it so, though I agree that if it were so, then it would slightly strengthen your case. You are completely dismissing my arguement that North Korea is using their nuclear weapons research as a deterrent, and instead claiming that you somehow know that their motivations are to attack South Korea. Why the hell would they want to do that? Oh yeah... to spread their evil, baby-eating, freedom-hating, devil-worshiping ideology. That's the only line that gets the attention of you idiots these days, right?
So, we aren't supposed to believe North Korea's statements when it comes to their illegal nuclear weapons program and explicit threats against South Korea, but we are supposed to believe their ridiculous claims that U.S. aggression is the cause of... their nuclear weapons program, that we aren't supposed to believe exists.
Again, this is what diplomacy is all about. They are pushing for trade concessions, largely consisting of the lifting of trade bans that the US imposed, and also after some guarantees that they won't be the target of the next regime-change expedition. You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that they actually intend to attack anyone. The world would simply not allow it. It would be completely impossible logistically to pull off. You really need to have a look at the state of development of N / S Korea and have a think about what allies each side has, and consider who is going to win any war between them. They are bluffing. Anyone but a fool can see this.
But back to the facts: there was NO chance that the United States was going to do any aggressive military action in the immediate future against the DPRK when it decided to do its nuclear test. NONE.
Well, there was actually. North Korea was branded a part of the infamous 'Axis of Evil'. This puts them on warning. It is prudent for North Korea to acquire a deterrent.
So why did they do it knowing the international condemnation that would surely follow?
As a deterrent against a US invasion, and to get some trade bans lifted.
This line that the United States is the bully that's left the poor DPRK no choice but to respond needs to stop.
It's hard to keep down the truth, eh?
If North Korea were truly trying to prevent conflict, why would they make provocative statements and aggressive actions at times when they are being, by and large, diplomatically ignored--not threated--by the US?
Dyslexia, eh? See above answers to these questions that you continue to ask ad-nauseum.
If you're going to try to play the DPRK's champion, you should at least abandon your willful ignorance of their country first.
I'm no champion of North Korea. I think both North Korea and the US stink to high heavens. But lets be clear: there is an international bully in the mix and it isn't North Korea.
North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world in an area slightly smaller than Mississippi.
Yes but with shit technology and a demoralized, conscripted constitution.
It spends about 25% of its GNP on its military, by proportion, the most in the world.
1) 25% of almost fucking nothing is a very small amount indeed. A percentage figure in this case is meaningless. A dollar figure would paint a very different picture. 2) By proportion, 25% puts is at about 4th. The US comes in at No 1
Iraq's stockpile of WMDs was not alleged - it was filmed and documented by United Nations weapons inspectors
Unfortunately a lot of Americans still believe this. You need to turn off Fox news and get your information from elsewhere. The UN categorically stated, time and again, that they found no evidence of any WMD program in Iraq. This is why Dubya had to act unilaterally and go directly against the wishes of the UN ( and the security council, no less ) in invading Iraq.
and it was actively used against Iran and the Kurds
As others have pointed out, Iraq didn't use their own chemical weapons in these cases, as they had none. They used US stocks. The CIA supervised Saddam's use of these weapons, documenting their effects. No-one is disputing the fact that Saddam used these weapons, but the sad reality is that their used was very much approved by the US, and in particular, Donald Rumsfeld.
North Korea's stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occassions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons.
So? The recent nuclear test proves otherwise. They achieved a nuclear 'event', but no-where near what's required to produce a nuclear bomb. It was a fizzle. And the article wasn't talking about nuclear weapons. It was spreading unsubstantiated crap about chemical and biological weapons, and then neglecting to put these allegations in the context of the US's chemical and biological weapons programs.
Furthermore, they've threatened to actually use those weapons against those they perceive as conspiring against them (ie "sea of fire...")
Welcome to the world of diplomacy. As I argued in my original post, this is required by North Korea, to fend of continual threats from the US. They are merely reacting. Do you expect them to sit and take it?
In your rush to condemn the United States and its government, you seem to have lost track of the fact that Iraq murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens
Oh bullshit! Thousands, yes. But hundreds of thousands? No. That honour goes to the US. And once more, Saddam was only able to do this with explicit US backing.
and North Korea is threatening nearby democracies with nuclear destruction while its citizens starve en masse in an Orwellian police state
More bullshit. North Korea is threatening no-one. They have no expansionist agenda, unlike the US. When is the last time North Korea invaded someone? And when was the last time the US invaded someone? North Korea's weapons are a joke compared to their neighbours', hence the current push to get nuclear weapons. They are seeking weapons as deterrence. As for the 'Orwellian police state', have a look at the US. Sure, North Korea is not innocent in this respect, but the scale of development of the US police state dwarfs North Korea incredibly. You need to get some context into your analysis.
The world is not black and white as we would like, and it's time for people who delude themselves into believing it is to grow up
How does their alleged stock ( in much the same vain as Iraq's alleged stock ) compare to the real stockpile that the US actively develops?
The simple fact is that all countries see these kinds of weapons as not only useful deterrents, but necessary deterrents. Consider, for example, how things would have played out differently if Iraq had possessed the nuclear ( or newkilla weapons as Dubya and half of the US pronounce it ), chemical and biological weapons that the US was claiming they had. The would have been no invasion, or if there had, there would have been very, very serious consequences, not only for US and coalition-of-the-killing troups, but for US citizens as well.
This is what proliferation is all about. This is why the US is so hypocritical when it demands that all others renounce WOMD, terrorism and such. They are the biggest perpetrators, and force everyone else's hand. Whether you agree with the politics of the other states involved or not ( and I'm certainly no fan of North Korea ), you have to look at it from their point of view. Having a US armed to the teeth with WOMD, and being the biggest terrorist around, it makes good sense to get some serious arsenal of your own. What's good for the goose... ( and Dubya makes a fine goose )...
If the government is doing all the drug research, who determines if the drug should be released? The government?
Yes.
But that would require a more noble government than even corporate research would, if the government was the only one researching the drugs. We have problems even now with getting the government to recall things like Vioxx. What would have happened if the government had invented Vioxx and got all the patent revenue/pharmataxes?
You're basically saying that the system would be open to abuse, whether in government hands, or corporate hands. But consider this: at least we can vote out our government. They are directly responsible to us. We can't vote out corporate leaders.
The problem with getting the government to force a recall of products is that the drug companies have literally billions of dollars tied up in the outcome, and therefore billions of dollars to spend to bastardise the political process.
So firstly, we remove the corporations from the equation. Then, we write off research costs as they occur. Lastly, we charge the cost of production ( subsidized for those who can't afford it ) for all treatments.
With all these pieces in place, we have:
- no profit drive corrupting our government, hence no bad decisions to keep bad drugs / treatments - all people benefit from R&D, not only those who can afford it - no massive burden on taxpayers to provide drugs through medicare once they're researched ( only cost is R&D ) - knowledge is collectively owned, as it should be
Want drugs researched faster? Throw more money at it. This also allows drugs / treatments to be researched that wouldn't normally be pursued, as their are fears of patent issues, or unprofitability.
But that would require a more noble government than even corporate research would
Oh don't make me laugh! Governments are corrupt precisely because of corporations. Remove them and their bribes, and governments will be at least a hell of a lot better than corporations. Anyway, if you think you live in a democracy, how exactly would you make it any better than handing it to the government. Now don't get me wrong - I certainly have no illusions about our current world leaders. For example I wouldn't trust Dubya with the task - he'd find a way to fuck us all while bringing in the profits somehow, but at least we can vote him out ( in theory, in practice is of course doesn't work ).
What would have happened if the government had invented Vioxx and got all the patent revenue/pharmataxes?
Well, firstly, under my model this wouldn't have happened, as when you remove the profit incentive, drugs are actually researched properly before being dumping on unsuspecting people.
Secondly, the whole process of R&D through approval through FDA approval would be a whole lot more transparent, meaning that you could actually track down the bastards responsible, and put them behind bars. With corporate secrecy, and the culture corruption, etc, this is impossible.
And if you think alternatives are bad now, what happens when only one entity is researching drugs? Once Lipitor is found, why hunt down Zocor? Why discover SSRIs if benzodiapazates work just fine?
Research would occur because people demand it. This is a very different situation from the current one, where research occurs to produce a product that is significantly different from a competitor's to be able to patent it and use it. This is where all the money goes at the moment, and the reason why so many untested drugs are dumped on the market and quietly removed when people start getting cancer etc from them.
The simple fact is that we don't need a billion different drugs with a billion different patents. There are plenty of naturally occuring products
Slashdot Mirror
I've been meaning to get back into recording, but ardour has been putting me off it for years. Perhaps the Ubuntu team will dig out something that doesn't require the user to script stuff to get going. I've been meaning to check out Beast ( http://beast.gtk.org ) but haven't gotten around to it yet.
Anyone got any other good audio apps.
As for the comment I see about no good video editing apps, I've had marvelous success with kino. I did a documentary on a Stop Bush demo when the bastard came to Canberra. It doesn't have as many flashy looking transitions as iMovie ( which is admittedly the only other video editor I've used ), but on the plus side, it doesn't have horrible cut & paste bugs and crashes and other bullshit that iMovie has.
I think those wish cash are a prime target. Are you suggesting that those who can't afford health care get out of your sight and die?
No I didn't realise that this was a Democrats bill. That makes it even worse. It would be bad enough if the conservatives were pushing this, but for the so-called liberal democrats to be pushing this, it really is a sign of high far things have gone.
And as for the 'return of fascism', I was talking about a return generally ( as in from it's 'high' point in Germany ).
The people are willing, but our governments are not.
I have long argued that the drug companies should be sidelined in favour of public money ( and lots of it ) being invested into medical research, with the benefits enjoyed by all. The problem is that the pharmecutical industry is incredibly powerful ( and rich ), and prevent our governments from performing any public research, insisting that the 'market will provide'. This story points out the bullshit level in this case. The market does not provide anything for society other than those things which make the most profits for market players. If we want the best possible medical technology, and for it to be accessible by all people and not just those with the cash, then we need to have massive public investment, and also consider specifically excluding medical technology from patent law.
What a joke. Anyone who doesn't see the imminent return of fascism in the US is clearly blind. Is there anyone alive who thinks that this will not be used to persecute critics of government policy. And Christ knows there is enough to criticize these days. The most cynical aspect, though, is that the US claims to be the champion of democracy! I sure don't want that kind of democracy here, and I'm damned sure the Iraqis / Afghanis / [ insert current axis-of-evil member here ] don't want this kind of democracy either.
Someone, for the love of God, impeach the bastard!
Yes. But the problem is that this is NOT a group of people pushing for a fundamentalist Islamic state. They're a bunch of people, who happen to be Islamic, yes, who are pushing for democracy. They're secular. Sure their culture etc has an Islamic slant. Why shouldn't it? The mainstream media is all too quick to brand them as "Islamists", when in fact this is not the key defining factor. They are a grass-roots democracy movement. Hence the US backing of Ethiopian attacks on them.
Oh come on!
Marx arrived at his theory independently. And simply saying that it's "inconsistent with reality" is a pretty lame cop-out. What, exactly, doesn't match with your reality? Do you suggest that some money is being created somewhere outside the production process, that the capitalist is somehow tapping into without input from the workers? I responded to your post with a thoughtful reply, and this is all you can muster? I put it to you again that you've never read Marx, and have no idea what you're talking about, other than what you see on Fox News, of course.
If you had read Marx as you've now claimed, you'd see the validity in what he pointed about about the nature of the capitalist system, and how it keeps itself entrenched. For example:
- capitalists employ workers, but pay them less than their work is worth
- the difference between what workers are paid and what their work is worth is capitalist profit
- capitalist profits are used to buy capital ( equipment )
- increasing cost of capital acts as a barrier to entry
- private ownership of capital prevents workers from being independent ( locks workers to capitalists )
When Marx wrote on these topics, he was very much ahead of his time - many say over 100 years. Capitalism was only just beginning to demonstrate these properties. Now, his theories not only still fit with reality, but actually fit more so. Private ownership of the means of production is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and real wages in all industrialised countries is dropping. Barriers to competition are far larger than Marx ever saw ( but not envisioned ).
None of Marx's works have been 'discredited', despite the one-line, throw-away attacks from the mainstream media. The only 'serious' attack on Marx's theory goes along the line that "it's been tried before and didn't work". But any serious discussion of examples where it's been tried before must also discuss the reaction of the capitalist powers. Take the US attack on the Bolshevik revolution. Or the constant war with the developing South American nations, who are pushing for a socialist society. Or the attack on the Vietnamese revolution. Or the murder of over 1,000,000 communists and supporters in Indonesia as Suharto came to power. Or the current attacks on Somalia ( here the democracy movements are being branded 'Islamists', as if that's some kind of disease ). There are literally hundreds of examples of social upheavals where the capitalist powers step in and crush the movement, in case it forms a stable example of a different kind of society for the world to consider.
The only reason China, Russia and North Korea are allowed to continue their form of society is precisely because they are not communist.
The post was clearly redundant, as the bug will be fixed in the future, and the release date back-dated :)
Try reading his works first, and commenting later ... not the other way around.
Well firstly, they have, in a number of ways. A lot of your tax dollars go to Halliburton, supposedly to 'reconstruct' Iraq, but inevitably none of it gets through. So they're a large sponge on the public purse.
Secondly, Halliburton have a horrible record of being being state persecution of people who are critical of them. Google for 'Scott Parkin'. He was arrested here in Australia on 'terrorist' charges ( all secret stuff, so that's about all we know ), and deported back to the US. He's a UN anti-war, anti-Halliburton activist. He's been constantly persecuted in the US over his criticism of their questionable ( even by US standards ) behaviour.
Thirdly, Halliburton are obviously strong backers of the neo-cons. Their agenda is to drive down wages to increase profits for big business. They argue for 'free market' economies, which basically means removing all tarrifs and barriers to trade, so that you are competing directly with slave-labour wages in 3rd world countries.
Of course, Halliburton aren't opposed to you making money the same way that they do. But try to make money the honest way - as a worker - and you'll find it's a different story entirely.
Russia under Lenin was actually quite good compared to what it replaced. Lenin delivered many reforms that improved the conditions of millions of people in Russia. Unfortunately every other country then turned around and attacked Russia, undermining the revolution, and eventually killing Lenin.
What Stalin did with Russia has nothing to do with what Lenin and the early Bolsheviks wanted, and also has nothing to do with what socialists are fighting for now. Stalin was a dictator. The state that he run was much closer to State Capitalism than communism. You can't blame socialists worldwide, and socialist theory generally, for what Stalin did.
Also State Capitalism. Just because the West calls China a communist state, doesn't make it so. China is very close to Stalinist Russia. The Chinese 'revolution' didn't involve the working class at all - it was merely a change of the ruling class, with no mass participation at all.
Pol Pot was a lunatic dictator. His rhetoric at the time was strongly anti-capitalist, largely because the US was bombing the Christ of out Cambodia. But apart from criticising capitalism, there was nothing communist about Pol Pot's Cambodia.
If you want to see some real examples of people working towards a communist society, have a look at the revolution sweeping South America. If you are an American citizen, you will know nothing of it, so search on the internet for alternative media reports. In particular, search for Bolivia and Venusualia. While both countries have their issues, they are at least pushing foward in the right direction - nationalising industries and using the profits to subsidise health care an education, etc.
I contest that it is YOU who has their head up their arse for this statement. And 'arse' is spelt 'arse', not 'ass'. You're an American, aren't you? Nice education system.
I just have you 2. And you can't prove that communism leads to dictatorship by induction. It doesn't work like that. If it did, then I could prove that capitalism also leads to dictatorship.
You should grow up, hold back on the childish insults, and try to education yourself somewhat. Every time you open your mouth, you demonstrate everything that is wrong with the society you live in. You have no ideas of your own, and no respect for other people's ideas, even in situations where you clearly have no experience. Only in America
Interesting assertion. You don't back it up with anything though. I say you're way off, and just repeating bullshit that you've heard elsewhere. It's not your fault. You probably don't even realise you're doing it.
Well firstly, Marx didn't condone violence. He provided an analysis of capitalism, and argued that the working class must fight to liberate themselves from the ruling class. The nature of the struggle depends on the nature of the ruling class, and unfortunately the ruling class won't just stand aside and take default gracefully. It is widely recognised that violence is justified if it leads to self-emancipation.
Someone else for once?
Not necessarily. This is what happens if there is no party able to inspire and lead the masses forward - a power vacuum exists and is filled by violent people. Yes. But it's not the only way things can play out, and you'd like us to believe.
The rest of your comments don't really deserve comment. You should do some reading on Marxism instead of parroting Fox News and the neo-cons.
No. It's just a dictatorship. Do some research on what communism is.
Yes it does. If you're only talking about a small difference, this assertion stands up. But when you're talking about executive salaries and these ridiculous bonuses, then this about of money puts them into a different class than the rest of us
Don't change the subject. This article is not about absolute equality as much as about relative equality. We don't have either at the moment. No-one is arguing for absolute equality.
Sounds like the 'defense' put up by the tobacco companies, McDonalds, etc. Sure, correlations don't prove cause-effect relations in the mathematical sense of the word 'prove'. But most people are happy with statistical proof. In this case, I'm one of them.
Oh, you're clutching at straws now.
Such as? You mean stuff like yatchs, bentleys, and other important stuff, right? Oh, and we'll just sweep the crime under the carpet. Good plan.
That's not entirely accurate, and not a fair comparison. When a corporation drops support of their product in a binary-only driver, that's the end of the story. When an open-source driver 'drops' support of a product, what they're doing is failing to maintain support. Other people are free to pick up the slack. If a device was supported by open-source software at one point, getting that support up-to-date is far easier than, say, starting from scratch.
Not really. This story demonstrates that if there is sufficient demand for an open-source driver, it's quite easy to raise enough funds to hire a developer to bring an open-source driver up-to-date
Not at all. There's a big difference between an excuse and the real reasoning here. What nVidia and ATI are basically saying is that they can't give out documentation on programming the hardware
The real reason nVidia and ATI won't release any information for developers is that they see the emergence of high quality, high performance, feature rich, open-source drivers as a threat to their profits. If, for example, Intel can leverage the Xorg / DRI environment ( not to mention developers ), then it means their unit costs are considerably lower than if they have to screw around with writing everything themselves, and sign expensive licensing deals to make use of other people's OpenGL implementation. Intel isn't the only competitor here. Any upstart can make some hardware, hand the open-source community the documentation they need, and guess what
Yes, but that patent covers the hardware, not the interface to talk to the hardware.
Very
As for the double-clicking thing - yeah this is no problem here. The datasheet ( or treeview, in Gtk2 speak ) is in read-only mode, and there is no action associated with single-clicking.
There are a lot of 'black holes' other than these 2 wars. The CIA's budget is separate, and itself is broken into visible and hidden components.
...not to mention channeling funds to Bush's buddies in the weapons manufacturing business ( Northrop Gunman, Boeing etc ).
... after a long wait. At least here when you've been 'structurally adjusted' out of a job, you can fall back on social security and not have to turn to selling drugs or theft to get by. And at the moment ( though this is on it's way out ), at least you can get public education that can propel you into a profession other than selling French fries ( sorry ... Freedom Fries ). The secret is that our military budget isn't yet the runaway train that the US's has become.
NASA's budget is separate, and while previously you might have gotten away with arguing that NASA is about science, under Bush, NASA is about finding new ways of delivering WOMD
Then there's the 'war on terror', which also has a plethora of it's own visible and hidden components, all basically coming down to an increase in the police state.
These are 3 direct examples off the top of my head. Then there's the more blurred areas such as:
- the US directly employing private 'security contractors'
- the US giving trade concessions, aid, loans and other incentives to countries who sign up to their military adventures - basically another way of subcontracting their wars
Though I haven't been motivated to actually add everything up, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US spend close to 50% of it's GDP on war. Why do you think health care, social security, and public education is so embarrassingly gutted in the US? Compare the situation there to here in Australia. Our public health system is certainly underfunded, with an acute lack of nurses, etc, but at least people can actually get access to health care
I have an in-house CRM application built on Gtk2-Perl. One of the tabs shows customers' locations, and details of energy accounts and telecommunications accounts ( which we analyse data for ). You can double-click in an account number to open more information on consumption. For each account that has data, the account number is highlighted blue. At the bottom on the tab page, there is a bold, blue, italic notice telling people to double-click in a record to see consumption data for the location ( in both energy and telecommunication tabs ). There is also a tooltip when you hover over the treeview. Lastly, this is exactly how our legacy application, which we just retired, worked .
So. How many people realise you can open consumption data by double-clicking in a location? Fucking NONE OF THEM! They all bitch and moan that they "don't have access to that now", purely on the basis that I haven't held their hand and double-clicked for them.
Users are dimwits. Seriously.
Re-read what I said about the US military budget. Most of the current military expenditure ( eg Iraq and Afghanistan ) is not counted .
Merely stating that this is North Korea's intention doesn't make it so, though I agree that if it were so, then it would slightly strengthen your case. You are completely dismissing my arguement that North Korea is using their nuclear weapons research as a deterrent, and instead claiming that you somehow know that their motivations are to attack South Korea. Why the hell would they want to do that? Oh yeah ... to spread their evil, baby-eating, freedom-hating, devil-worshiping ideology. That's the only line that gets the attention of you idiots these days, right?
Again, this is what diplomacy is all about. They are pushing for trade concessions, largely consisting of the lifting of trade bans that the US imposed, and also after some guarantees that they won't be the target of the next regime-change expedition. You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that they actually intend to attack anyone. The world would simply not allow it. It would be completely impossible logistically to pull off. You really need to have a look at the state of development of N / S Korea and have a think about what allies each side has, and consider who is going to win any war between them. They are bluffing. Anyone but a fool can see this.
Well, there was actually. North Korea was branded a part of the infamous 'Axis of Evil'. This puts them on warning. It is prudent for North Korea to acquire a deterrent.
As a deterrent against a US invasion, and to get some trade bans lifted.
It's hard to keep down the truth, eh?
Dyslexia, eh? See above answers to these questions that you continue to ask ad-nauseum.
I'm no champion of North Korea. I think both North Korea and the US stink to high heavens. But lets be clear: there is an international bully in the mix and it isn't North Korea.
Yes but with shit technology and a demoralized, conscripted constitution.
1) 25% of almost fucking nothing is a very small amount indeed. A percentage figure in this case is meaningless. A dollar figure would paint a very different picture.
2) By proportion, 25% puts is at about 4th. The US comes in at No 1
I will now respond to all of your valid points:
Unfortunately a lot of Americans still believe this. You need to turn off Fox news and get your information from elsewhere. The UN categorically stated, time and again, that they found no evidence of any WMD program in Iraq. This is why Dubya had to act unilaterally and go directly against the wishes of the UN ( and the security council, no less ) in invading Iraq.
As others have pointed out, Iraq didn't use their own chemical weapons in these cases, as they had none. They used US stocks. The CIA supervised Saddam's use of these weapons, documenting their effects. No-one is disputing the fact that Saddam used these weapons, but the sad reality is that their used was very much approved by the US, and in particular, Donald Rumsfeld.
So? The recent nuclear test proves otherwise. They achieved a nuclear 'event', but no-where near what's required to produce a nuclear bomb. It was a fizzle. And the article wasn't talking about nuclear weapons. It was spreading unsubstantiated crap about chemical and biological weapons, and then neglecting to put these allegations in the context of the US's chemical and biological weapons programs.
Welcome to the world of diplomacy. As I argued in my original post, this is required by North Korea, to fend of continual threats from the US. They are merely reacting. Do you expect them to sit and take it?
Oh bullshit! Thousands, yes. But hundreds of thousands? No. That honour goes to the US. And once more, Saddam was only able to do this with explicit US backing.
More bullshit. North Korea is threatening no-one. They have no expansionist agenda, unlike the US. When is the last time North Korea invaded someone? And when was the last time the US invaded someone? North Korea's weapons are a joke compared to their neighbours', hence the current push to get nuclear weapons. They are seeking weapons as deterrence. As for the 'Orwellian police state', have a look at the US. Sure, North Korea is not innocent in this respect, but the scale of development of the US police state dwarfs North Korea incredibly. You need to get some context into your analysis.
I agree with you on that one.
How does their alleged stock ( in much the same vain as Iraq's alleged stock ) compare to the real stockpile that the US actively develops?
... ( and Dubya makes a fine goose ) ...
The simple fact is that all countries see these kinds of weapons as not only useful deterrents, but necessary deterrents. Consider, for example, how things would have played out differently if Iraq had possessed the nuclear ( or newkilla weapons as Dubya and half of the US pronounce it ), chemical and biological weapons that the US was claiming they had. The would have been no invasion, or if there had, there would have been very, very serious consequences, not only for US and coalition-of-the-killing troups, but for US citizens as well.
This is what proliferation is all about. This is why the US is so hypocritical when it demands that all others renounce WOMD, terrorism and such. They are the biggest perpetrators, and force everyone else's hand. Whether you agree with the politics of the other states involved or not ( and I'm certainly no fan of North Korea ), you have to look at it from their point of view. Having a US armed to the teeth with WOMD, and being the biggest terrorist around, it makes good sense to get some serious arsenal of your own. What's good for the goose
Yes.
You're basically saying that the system would be open to abuse, whether in government hands, or corporate hands. But consider this: at least we can vote out our government. They are directly responsible to us. We can't vote out corporate leaders.
The problem with getting the government to force a recall of products is that the drug companies have literally billions of dollars tied up in the outcome, and therefore billions of dollars to spend to bastardise the political process.
So firstly, we remove the corporations from the equation. Then, we write off research costs as they occur. Lastly, we charge the cost of production ( subsidized for those who can't afford it ) for all treatments.
With all these pieces in place, we have:
- no profit drive corrupting our government, hence no bad decisions to keep bad drugs / treatments
- all people benefit from R&D, not only those who can afford it
- no massive burden on taxpayers to provide drugs through medicare once they're researched ( only cost is R&D )
- knowledge is collectively owned, as it should be
Want drugs researched faster? Throw more money at it. This also allows drugs / treatments to be researched that wouldn't normally be pursued, as their are fears of patent issues, or unprofitability.
Oh don't make me laugh! Governments are corrupt precisely because of corporations. Remove them and their bribes, and governments will be at least a hell of a lot better than corporations. Anyway, if you think you live in a democracy, how exactly would you make it any better than handing it to the government. Now don't get me wrong - I certainly have no illusions about our current world leaders. For example I wouldn't trust Dubya with the task - he'd find a way to fuck us all while bringing in the profits somehow, but at least we can vote him out ( in theory, in practice is of course doesn't work ).
Well, firstly, under my model this wouldn't have happened, as when you remove the profit incentive, drugs are actually researched properly before being dumping on unsuspecting people.
Secondly, the whole process of R&D through approval through FDA approval would be a whole lot more transparent, meaning that you could actually track down the bastards responsible, and put them behind bars. With corporate secrecy, and the culture corruption, etc, this is impossible.
Research would occur because people demand it. This is a very different situation from the current one, where research occurs to produce a product that is significantly different from a competitor's to be able to patent it and use it. This is where all the money goes at the moment, and the reason why so many untested drugs are dumped on the market and quietly removed when people start getting cancer etc from them.
The simple fact is that we don't need a billion different drugs with a billion different patents. There are plenty of naturally occuring products