Citibank's credit cards allow users to create a similar "virtual credit card" number. I've used it for my online shopping/transactions. Unfortunately I didn't get the CC before I signed up for steam (sigh).
Individual cities, counties, and municipalities can pass laws restricting liquor/alcohol consumption. There is no universal Federal law, with perhaps the drinking age being an exception. All states must have a drinking age of 21 to received Federal Highway funds (a form of extortion really).
These laws are sometimes known as "blue laws." They exist because in the past people assosicated drinking with morality. Many people still make this assosiation. Thus, passing laws in order to curb drinking or public drunkendness are common throughout the US.
Many cities/counties/etc. have laws such as:
Bars much close at midnight/1am/2am/3am, depending on the local government
Liquor may not be sold Sunday mornings/all day sunday.
No alcohol "on the public way," meaning you can't carry a beer/wine/booze in the open while standing on the street or sidewalk. Most jurisdictions make the "exception" that if you have the alcohol in a paperbag or something where people can't actually see what you are drinking.
There are many places in the US where alcohol is still 100% illegal, i.e. prohibition. One such place is Moore County, KY; the home of Jack Daniel's Distillery. The distillery has a special licence to produce alcohol in the dry county.
I have to admit I never really managed to play it.
You're in luck. Derek Smart (the lone maniac developer) has released the old versions of the game for free on the game's Web page. A while back I downloaded BattleCruiser Millenium, the 2nd generation of the title. [BattleCruiser 3000 was the 1st.] I have to admit, it is impressive. The scope of the idea of the game: space cruiser combat, space fighter combat, and (FPS) ground combat is very ambitious. Unfortunately the gameplay is not very good and the game itself is unstable. It doesn't help that Derek denies that his games have any stability problems.
Your comment was too insightful and too even-headed to belong on Slashdot.
You must be new here!
Please pick up your complimentary GroupThink(tm) brochure on the table to your left. It tells you what to think and what to write in each discussion topic(Linux vs. Microsoft, Democrat vs Republican, BSD vs Nintendo, etc.) In the future we'd appriciated it if you'd keep to the party line. Thanks and enjoy your stay!
I've even learned an important new legal research method in the process. A lawyer can't just read a bunch of cases and statutes to know what the law is. He also needs to come to Slashdot, because if somebody here says something's the law, and it gets moderated to +5, then it's the law.
No, no, no. Only if it's moderated +5 Insightful does it become a law, +5 Interesting is just a suggestion and +5 Funny is Leno's new monolouge opener.
Seriously...Mr. Beckerman,
Despite some of the questions and comments in this entire discussion I think you handled yourself pretty well. I must say you have educated me with regard to many issues surrounding music-sharing/RIAA lawsuits/etc. For that let me personally say "Thank you."
Government have given in many times and released prisoners. One such case was when the group "Black September" highjacked a plane after the 1972 Munich hostage crisis. Black September terrorists were the ones who were responsible for the 1972 Munich Olympics attacks/hostage crisis. I am short on all the details but some of the terrorists at Munich were captured so other members of Black September or an affiliated group highjacked an airplane and flew it to a neutral country. They demanded the release of their fellow jailed members who were released by the German government.
This proove the old adage that the world is not driven by reality but by the perception of reality.
I would argue that no one in their right minds would try to highjack an airplane again. In the past highjacking was a political statement. Usually the highjackers would fly the plane to a neutral airport and make demands. Often this would include the release of fellow members of their organization who were incarcerated. If you were an unlucky passenger, you would be an unfortuante pawn in a global chess-game. (Obviously there were exceptions.)
After the terrorist attacks on 11 Sept. 2001, no passenger will sit still and let a highjacker take over an airplane. Highjacking is now synonomous with suicide attacks. In my opinion, the real danger to airline travel comes not from highjackers but from explosives being placed on the airplane, e.g. Pan Am flight 103.
But the perception in the US is that flying needs to be protected, so the result is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Others have pointed out that if you are not white, have any kind of middle eastern origins, and you try to fly without an ID, you're pretty much screwed. And because the TSA has near absolute authority about whether or not you fly, they can deny you boarding simply because they feel like it.
The result of all this is that flying, IMO, is not significantly safer than before. We are concentrating our resources on "fighting the last battle." Making sure passengers have proper Identification doesn't make flying any safer. One could point out that some of the highjackers on 11 Sept. 2001 had valid IDs, after all they entered the country legally. As a society we should concentrate our efforts on preventing bombings or other bomb like devices. The "shoe bomber" Richard Reid in late 2001 probably represents a greater threat, yet checking to make sure he has proper identification isn't going to help.
I would argue that the checks they do at airports to check for explosives are worthwhile. But making sure you have an ID with you are not.
That sounds like a great movie idea. An imperialistic war-like race who has run out of oxygen goes to conquer a peaceful neighbor who has plenty of oxygen reserves. Throw in a swashbuckling rouge and his trusty sidekick. Add a love-interest who happens to be from the peaceful neighbor. Maybe a robot for a chambermaid.
OOOoooo!!! Make sure you put in some mystisim via an ancient pwerful religion. Something with action-at-a-distance too, that always brings in the audience.
According the the PBS Web site for Monty Python, the first two one-hour episodes air tomorrow night: Wednesday February 22nd. The Flying Circus episodes will air starting in April of this year.
You'll have to check your local listings for the exact time. For all you MythTV users in Chicago it will be Channel 11 WTTW at 9pm CST.
One should point out that George W. Bush's Social Security town hall meeting was a scripted event. That is to say the audience members were screened beforehand and the questions known to all. While President Bush had to give real answers and the questions were real (albeit softball) the whole event stank of spin. I didn't take it seriously and neither should you.
You may be interested in SilentPCReview.com. It's a Web site that is dedicated to removing PC noise. I have been using it to find recommendations for hardware components when I build new machines. Although there are plenty of hardcore people who will modify the hell out of cases/fans/etc. just to get one less Decibel (dB), I find that just buying some smart components can significantly reduce the noise computers make, such as:
low noise fans, such as the Nexus 120mm
hard disk drives, currently Samsung has the quietest
Let me restate your thesis because I don't believe I understand it. Please correct me if I am wrong, which I probably am.
Thesis: World War II (WWII) was fought by the UK, France, USSR, China, and USA (Allies) against Germany, Italy, and Japan (Axis)[1] in order to prove to their citizens, or to whoever, that they were against Anti-Semitism and Eugenics, especially because the governments and leaders of said Allies engaged in Anti-Semitism and Eugenics and they did not want their own bigotry to come to light. By fighting against a greater injustice than their own they could redeem themselves in the eyes of others.
[1]I am purposely leaving out many other combatants due to space limitations.
I am going to write the first part of this post assuming that I have your thesis correct (which I probably don't) and will address what I think about said thesis.
Eugenics and Anti-Semitism are not the same thing. They are related in that they both rely on what we enlightened people would now consider bigotry. Certainly at the time they were probably not considered evil or inhumane. Fortunately by out standards they are. I won't disagree with you that Americans, Britons, and Russians where just as Anti-Semitic as Germans or any other nationality. I also won't disagree with you how Eugenics was used in the US. There are numerous shameful examples that even make headlines today as when the Governor of Virginia apologized for his state's Eugenics programs.
I don't believe that humanitarian reasons had much to do with the reasons why WWII occured. The idea that human rights somehow trump all other international issues began after WWII with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1948. Of course it was drafted and the ideals developed during the Second World War, but the reasons that caused WWII were a result of state of international affairs in the 1930s.
Finally I'd like to disagree with you about your final point: Of course the worst thing of all is that the US didn't work up much of a sweat about things even AFTER Poland was invaded. London was being firebombed and we were still discussing "if we get pulled into this war, whose side would we be on?"
The United States of before WWII was a different country than the one that emerged afterwards. In fact US foreign policy was always been defined as a mix of two poles, idealism (Woodrow Wilson) and realism (Theodore Roosevelt). Before WWII idealism coupled with isolationism reigned. The idea that the US should be the "city on the hill," acting as a beacon for all to copy our own shining example of democracy, dominated US foreign policy and the minds of ordinary citizens. By working to make a better democratic republic at home the US could be an example to countries abroad.
But there was a current of realism in American foriegn relations and that was not directed toward Europe but toward the East to China. Trade relations with China was the reason for the friction between the US and Japan in the 1920s and 30s. The US may not have "cared" about Germany annexing Central Europe, but when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 the US cared.[2] The embargo against oil which the US imposed against Japan after its invasion of China in 1937 was one of the primary reasons Japan wanted to extend its empire to the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia today), a major source of petroleum. Japan could only do so if the US Navy in the Pacific was neutered. This directly lead to the surprise attack of the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. The Japenese were aiming for one decisive blow in order to knock out the US. And with Britian fighting against Germany the British colonies were vulnerable. Japan stood to gain everything with one roll of the dice.
[[2]The real "start" of WWII as far as I am concerned. Of course real fighting didn't begin until 1937 when Japan invaded the rest of China and it didn't become worldwide until 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Europeans/
WWII was about Eugenics and superiority through control of genetics.
Blanket statements such as these always invite the inevitable discussions. ("No your wrong!" "You suck!" "No YOU suck!"). World War II had many causes. Unlike some other wars which can be traced back to a single cause, WWII's causes included:
European theater
Hilter's desire to return Germany to first class world power status after being humilated by the Treaty of Versailles.
Hilter's policy of "living space" which demanded the forced exodus of people of slavic origin in order to make space of his "Master Race." And my forced exodus I also mean the systematic genocide of entire races. (The eugenics you speak of).
Domination of the European continent, politically. Hilter's Germany probably would not have occupied France and other Western European countries if Germany had won the war. Instead they would have set up satellite states similar to the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact.
Mussolini's desire to elevate Italy to first class world power status.
His own imperial desires to conquor the Balkens, Greece, and North Africa in order to make modern Italy a second "Roman Empire."
Britian and France's inability to recognize Facsim as a threat they had to match early on, instead appeasing Hilter and letting him "annex" the Sudatenland, Austria, and Chezkoslovakia. (okay not really a cause but not everything is Hilter's fault)
Pacific Theatre
Japan's desire to become a first class world power.
The Japanese military government's view that an overseas empire would make it less dependent on foriegn raw material. Specifically oil which it had to import. ("Foriegn dependence on oil" sound familiar?)
The miltary's desire to conquor China for it's fertile land and resources.
Japan figuring that it was better off fighting the US in one crushing blow instead of negotiating.
Of course I havn't touched on all the causes and I am sure I got some of my details wrong. In addition I am sure I made a blanket statement somewhere that will invite discussion.
One question. How did you clean the components afterwards? I assume you didn't just throw everything away and reused some of the parts. Didn't the unused expansion slots on the M/B and the open USB, serial, etc. ports have oil lodge inside of them?
I just want to point out at radium and other radioactive element emit radiation mostly in the form of particles or high energy gamma rays.
I don't actually doubt the fundamental idea of your post. That things such as radium clock dials and x-ray shoe size machines were potentially harmful and that today we consider them stupid. People in the future could very well consider our current generation's cell phone usage stupid. But I want to point out the scientific fallacies that your post.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the word radiation in everyday speech. The most general definition is the transmission of energy through a medium. So a campfire generating heat is giving off radiation. The light coming off of your computer monitor is your CRT emitting radiation. When people say radiation they can mean a lot of different things. More confusing are when you add terms like radioactive.
When a nuclear particle such as radium or iridium decays it gives of particles. These particles were given the names alpha, beta, and gamma by early physicists. Today we know that nuclear decays give off helium nuclei (alpha), electrons (beta), photons (gamma), and neutron (no Greek name). When a particle decays some of it's energy is carried off into space by these particles. It is this loss of energy by an emission of a particle that is called radiation. Perhaps a more precise term is "nuclear radiation." When an element naturally gives off radiation it is called radioactive. All four of these particles can do harmful damage to human tissue. However, alpha particles are so heavy that even your clothes (and even air) can block their transmission.
Beta, gamma, and neutrons can be dangerous because they can cut your DNA strands in the nucleus of your cells. Although you cells can repair a cut strand, exposure to thousands of particles can cut a strange many times, which results in the cell being unable to divide, and the death of said cell. Now I've only described one type of damage that can occur. The human body is a complex mechanism that can receive complex radiation damage. I am not an expert in this field.
The word radiation becomes confusing when you move to the realm of photons. Recall that the electro-magnetic spectrum is made up of frequencies ranging from the very high (gamma-rays, x-rays) to the very low (radio waves). When your turn on a light bulb, the photons that are emitted are in the visible and infrared ranges. That is why you see "light" and feel "heat." Radiation is responsible for both of these phenomenon. In this case radiation refers to the emission of photons with energy. The amount of energy emitted is described by a very simple formula:
Energy = (plank's constant) * frequency
or E = h f
So high energy photons, such as gammas that nuclear decays emit, carry a lot of energy. This is why gamma-rays and x-rays can be harmful. But low frequency waves such as infrared, microwaves, and radio waves carry much lower amounts of energy. The difference between a gamma-ray and a microwave can be almost 10 orders of magnitude.
Cells phones transmit their signals on microwaves. Cell towers emit radiation in the form a microwave photons and cells phone also emit radiation in the form of microwave photons. I use the term microwaves here not because the frequency of the cell phone transmission is the same as the waves in your kitchen microwave, but because they are higher in frequency than radio waves but smaller in freq. than infrared waves. They carry much less energy than the x-rays mentioned in your post. Cell phones also don't emit any alpha, beta, or neutrons in appreciable numbers.
So after reading all this are cell phones dangerous because they emit photons? Does the energy of said photons affect the human brain? I have no idea. But I just want you (guys) to understand the physics behind the word radiation. As we see it took a long post to explain what exactly a word that is often used but frequently misunderstood.
After some cursory googling, I was unable to find any webpage that substantiates this story, but it does seem that the sheep are privately owned. (This webpage briefly mentions the "privately owned sheep" at CERN.) If you (or anybody else) can point me to an authoritative explaination of the sheep, I'd appreciate it...:)
I was always told the sheep are natural lawn mowers. Think about it: they move around to different places on the lab site eating the grass to a certain level.
All your proposals have good merit, but to problem with reform is that it can't be too radical. In the end most people resist significant change. To alter our government requires small steps that would be perceived as more "democratic" rather than a radial shift. To this end I'll comment about your reforms below.
1) A constitutional amendment is required to dispose of the god awful electoral college.
Agreed, the Electoral College as it stands needs to be changed. But getting rid of it and placing a pure popular vote won't work well either. You'll meet lots of resistance with rural states and voters who will feel disenfranchised by large urban areas, and truthfully they will be under a popular vote system.
Keep in mind that under the US Constitution it is the states that vote for the President. That means that each state decided how to elect Electors to who actually vote for the President. It probably will not be possible to change this system drastically, but what we can change is how the states decide on the electors.
Right now 48 out of 50 states choose their Electors through a winner-take-all popular vote. Since it is winner-take-all, we get to label states as "red states" and "blue states," even though there are plenty of conservative voters in California and New York and plenty of liberal voters in Georgia and Texas. By changing the winner-take-all system employed by most states we can change how the Electoral College functions.
In fact in the past some states simply had their legislators choose their Electors without any popular vote, this occurred in many southern states during the Reconstruction period.
Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district system where the overall popular vote gives two electors for each candidate (representing the Senators) while the rest of the state is broken into congressional districts which vote in a winner-take-all system for an Elector for that "district." Maine has two congressional seats while Nebraska has three. This system is better but has some flaws. For one many congressional districts are Gerry-mandered to be purely controlled by one-party.
Another interesting idea is a proportional voting scheme where a states electoral votes are divided among the candidates proportionally. Lets take Colorado, which has such a ballot initiative this November.[1] The state has nine electoral votes and if the popular vote is split 52%-48% the elector votes are split 5-4. This system, if implemented nation-wide, would mean the candidates must campaign in all states and that third parties could win some electoral votes. In 1992 Ross Perot won 17% of the popular vote but did not receive one electoral vote. If this system had been in place than Bill Clinton would have only received about 230 electoral votes and the House of Representatives would have had to decide the election. There in lies the problem with this system which is that the Constitution requires a majority of the Electoral College to win the Presidency.
[1]This initiative is really a ploy by the Democrat's to get Kerry some electoral votes this November. If it passes it would apply to the current election which has all kinds of ex post facto (like) issues that would have to be resolved in the courts.
2) There needs to be legislation or a constitution amendment that prevents the two major parties from passing laws that prevent new parties from starting or gaining access to the ballot.
Having a minimum threshold on a political party is a good way to prevent extreme views from forming third-parties. That being said you are correct in that the two major political parties control the states and since it is the states who elect Representatives, Senators, and the President they can block out third parties.
That being said, it is at the state not the national level where third parties must originate. Having legislation, or amendments, that allows for the easy formation and propagation of third parties i
(1) the game isn't broadcast in their area. E.g., a Steelers fan who lives in Nebraska might not get the Steelers on their TV. The solution: NFL Sunday Ticket. "But that's exclusive to DirecTV?" says the NFL. Well whose fucking fault is that. There are plenty of people who would be willing to pay for NFL Sunday Ticket if it were available through Cable companies. They can't because the greedy NFL signs a multi-billion dollar contract with DirecTV. (I want Sunday Ticket, but my apartment faces north. I can't get DirecTV.)
Gregg Easterbrook of "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" pointed out in a column that fans in Canada and Mexico have access to NFL Sunday Ticket, or the equivalent service in their respective countries. And they don't have to be bound to a single service. In fact he reported that fans in Iran can get any game via satellite (NFL Sunday Ticket equivalent) without having to be bound to a single company either.
Slashdot Mirror
Citibank's credit cards allow users to create a similar "virtual credit card" number. I've used it for my online shopping/transactions. Unfortunately I didn't get the CC before I signed up for steam (sigh).
--Homer
"I know it when I see it..."
--Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
See this wikipedia article for more details including the entire quotation.
Individual cities, counties, and municipalities can pass laws restricting liquor/alcohol consumption. There is no universal Federal law, with perhaps the drinking age being an exception. All states must have a drinking age of 21 to received Federal Highway funds (a form of extortion really).
These laws are sometimes known as "blue laws." They exist because in the past people assosicated drinking with morality. Many people still make this assosiation. Thus, passing laws in order to curb drinking or public drunkendness are common throughout the US.
Many cities/counties/etc. have laws such as:
There are many places in the US where alcohol is still 100% illegal, i.e. prohibition. One such place is Moore County, KY; the home of Jack Daniel's Distillery. The distillery has a special licence to produce alcohol in the dry county.
I meant to moderate it as Funny.
You're in luck. Derek Smart (the lone maniac developer) has released the old versions of the game for free on the game's Web page. A while back I downloaded BattleCruiser Millenium, the 2nd generation of the title. [BattleCruiser 3000 was the 1st.] I have to admit, it is impressive. The scope of the idea of the game: space cruiser combat, space fighter combat, and (FPS) ground combat is very ambitious. Unfortunately the gameplay is not very good and the game itself is unstable. It doesn't help that Derek denies that his games have any stability problems.
I recommend you try it out.
Trust is hard to rebuild after others lose their trust in you.
Your comment was too insightful and too even-headed to belong on Slashdot.
You must be new here!
Please pick up your complimentary GroupThink(tm) brochure on the table to your left. It tells you what to think and what to write in each discussion topic(Linux vs. Microsoft, Democrat vs Republican, BSD vs Nintendo, etc.) In the future we'd appriciated it if you'd keep to the party line. Thanks and enjoy your stay!
No, no, no. Only if it's moderated +5 Insightful does it become a law, +5 Interesting is just a suggestion and +5 Funny is Leno's new monolouge opener.
Seriously...Mr. Beckerman,
Despite some of the questions and comments in this entire discussion I think you handled yourself pretty well. I must say you have educated me with regard to many issues surrounding music-sharing/RIAA lawsuits/etc. For that let me personally say "Thank you."
--Shawn
Government have given in many times and released prisoners. One such case was when the group "Black September" highjacked a plane after the 1972 Munich hostage crisis. Black September terrorists were the ones who were responsible for the 1972 Munich Olympics attacks/hostage crisis. I am short on all the details but some of the terrorists at Munich were captured so other members of Black September or an affiliated group highjacked an airplane and flew it to a neutral country. They demanded the release of their fellow jailed members who were released by the German government.
Wikipedia has more details.
This proove the old adage that the world is not driven by reality but by the perception of reality.
I would argue that no one in their right minds would try to highjack an airplane again. In the past highjacking was a political statement. Usually the highjackers would fly the plane to a neutral airport and make demands. Often this would include the release of fellow members of their organization who were incarcerated. If you were an unlucky passenger, you would be an unfortuante pawn in a global chess-game. (Obviously there were exceptions.)
After the terrorist attacks on 11 Sept. 2001, no passenger will sit still and let a highjacker take over an airplane. Highjacking is now synonomous with suicide attacks. In my opinion, the real danger to airline travel comes not from highjackers but from explosives being placed on the airplane, e.g. Pan Am flight 103.
But the perception in the US is that flying needs to be protected, so the result is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Others have pointed out that if you are not white, have any kind of middle eastern origins, and you try to fly without an ID, you're pretty much screwed. And because the TSA has near absolute authority about whether or not you fly, they can deny you boarding simply because they feel like it.
The result of all this is that flying, IMO, is not significantly safer than before. We are concentrating our resources on "fighting the last battle." Making sure passengers have proper Identification doesn't make flying any safer. One could point out that some of the highjackers on 11 Sept. 2001 had valid IDs, after all they entered the country legally. As a society we should concentrate our efforts on preventing bombings or other bomb like devices. The "shoe bomber" Richard Reid in late 2001 probably represents a greater threat, yet checking to make sure he has proper identification isn't going to help.
I would argue that the checks they do at airports to check for explosives are worthwhile. But making sure you have an ID with you are not.
OOOoooo!!! Make sure you put in some mystisim via an ancient pwerful religion. Something with action-at-a-distance too, that always brings in the audience.
It'll make millions!
You'll have to check your local listings for the exact time. For all you MythTV users in Chicago it will be Channel 11 WTTW at 9pm CST.
President of Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza Garcia was described by FDR as "our son of a bitch."
One should point out that George W. Bush's Social Security town hall meeting was a scripted event. That is to say the audience members were screened beforehand and the questions known to all. While President Bush had to give real answers and the questions were real (albeit softball) the whole event stank of spin. I didn't take it seriously and neither should you.
That doesn't excuse the networking staff from allowing this breech to occur, but I thought I would set the record straight.
Thesis: World War II (WWII) was fought by the UK, France, USSR, China, and USA (Allies) against Germany, Italy, and Japan (Axis)[1] in order to prove to their citizens, or to whoever, that they were against Anti-Semitism and Eugenics, especially because the governments and leaders of said Allies engaged in Anti-Semitism and Eugenics and they did not want their own bigotry to come to light. By fighting against a greater injustice than their own they could redeem themselves in the eyes of others.
[1]I am purposely leaving out many other combatants due to space limitations.
I am going to write the first part of this post assuming that I have your thesis correct (which I probably don't) and will address what I think about said thesis.
Eugenics and Anti-Semitism are not the same thing. They are related in that they both rely on what we enlightened people would now consider bigotry. Certainly at the time they were probably not considered evil or inhumane. Fortunately by out standards they are. I won't disagree with you that Americans, Britons, and Russians where just as Anti-Semitic as Germans or any other nationality. I also won't disagree with you how Eugenics was used in the US. There are numerous shameful examples that even make headlines today as when the Governor of Virginia apologized for his state's Eugenics programs.
I don't believe that humanitarian reasons had much to do with the reasons why WWII occured. The idea that human rights somehow trump all other international issues began after WWII with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1948. Of course it was drafted and the ideals developed during the Second World War, but the reasons that caused WWII were a result of state of international affairs in the 1930s.
Finally I'd like to disagree with you about your final point:
Of course the worst thing of all is that the US didn't work up much of a sweat about things even AFTER Poland was invaded. London was being firebombed and we were still discussing "if we get pulled into this war, whose side would we be on?"
The United States of before WWII was a different country than the one that emerged afterwards. In fact US foreign policy was always been defined as a mix of two poles, idealism (Woodrow Wilson) and realism (Theodore Roosevelt). Before WWII idealism coupled with isolationism reigned. The idea that the US should be the "city on the hill," acting as a beacon for all to copy our own shining example of democracy, dominated US foreign policy and the minds of ordinary citizens. By working to make a better democratic republic at home the US could be an example to countries abroad.
But there was a current of realism in American foriegn relations and that was not directed toward Europe but toward the East to China. Trade relations with China was the reason for the friction between the US and Japan in the 1920s and 30s. The US may not have "cared" about Germany annexing Central Europe, but when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933 the US cared.[2] The embargo against oil which the US imposed against Japan after its invasion of China in 1937 was one of the primary reasons Japan wanted to extend its empire to the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia today), a major source of petroleum. Japan could only do so if the US Navy in the Pacific was neutered. This directly lead to the surprise attack of the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. The Japenese were aiming for one decisive blow in order to knock out the US. And with Britian fighting against Germany the British colonies were vulnerable. Japan stood to gain everything with one roll of the dice.
[[2]The real "start" of WWII as far as I am concerned. Of course real fighting didn't begin until 1937 when Japan invaded the rest of China and it didn't become worldwide until 1939 with the invasion of Poland. Europeans/
Blanket statements such as these always invite the inevitable discussions. ("No your wrong!" "You suck!" "No YOU suck!"). World War II had many causes. Unlike some other wars which can be traced back to a single cause, WWII's causes included:
European theater
- Hilter's desire to return Germany to first class world power status after being humilated by the Treaty of Versailles.
- Hilter's policy of "living space" which demanded the forced exodus of people of slavic origin in order to make space of his "Master Race." And my forced exodus I also mean the systematic genocide of entire races. (The eugenics you speak of).
- Domination of the European continent, politically. Hilter's Germany probably would not have occupied France and other Western European countries if Germany had won the war. Instead they would have set up satellite states similar to the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact.
- Mussolini's desire to elevate Italy to first class world power status.
- His own imperial desires to conquor the Balkens, Greece, and North Africa in order to make modern Italy a second "Roman Empire."
- Britian and France's inability to recognize Facsim as a threat they had to match early on, instead appeasing Hilter and letting him "annex" the Sudatenland, Austria, and Chezkoslovakia. (okay not really a cause but not everything is Hilter's fault)
Pacific TheatreOf course I havn't touched on all the causes and I am sure I got some of my details wrong. In addition I am sure I made a blanket statement somewhere that will invite discussion.
Oh well. :\
One question. How did you clean the components afterwards? I assume you didn't just throw everything away and reused some of the parts. Didn't the unused expansion slots on the M/B and the open USB, serial, etc. ports have oil lodge inside of them?
I don't actually doubt the fundamental idea of your post. That things such as radium clock dials and x-ray shoe size machines were potentially harmful and that today we consider them stupid. People in the future could very well consider our current generation's cell phone usage stupid. But I want to point out the scientific fallacies that your post.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the word radiation in everyday speech. The most general definition is the transmission of energy through a medium. So a campfire generating heat is giving off radiation. The light coming off of your computer monitor is your CRT emitting radiation. When people say radiation they can mean a lot of different things. More confusing are when you add terms like radioactive.
When a nuclear particle such as radium or iridium decays it gives of particles. These particles were given the names alpha, beta, and gamma by early physicists. Today we know that nuclear decays give off helium nuclei (alpha), electrons (beta), photons (gamma), and neutron (no Greek name). When a particle decays some of it's energy is carried off into space by these particles. It is this loss of energy by an emission of a particle that is called radiation. Perhaps a more precise term is "nuclear radiation." When an element naturally gives off radiation it is called radioactive. All four of these particles can do harmful damage to human tissue. However, alpha particles are so heavy that even your clothes (and even air) can block their transmission.
Beta, gamma, and neutrons can be dangerous because they can cut your DNA strands in the nucleus of your cells. Although you cells can repair a cut strand, exposure to thousands of particles can cut a strange many times, which results in the cell being unable to divide, and the death of said cell. Now I've only described one type of damage that can occur. The human body is a complex mechanism that can receive complex radiation damage. I am not an expert in this field.
The word radiation becomes confusing when you move to the realm of photons. Recall that the electro-magnetic spectrum is made up of frequencies ranging from the very high (gamma-rays, x-rays) to the very low (radio waves). When your turn on a light bulb, the photons that are emitted are in the visible and infrared ranges. That is why you see "light" and feel "heat." Radiation is responsible for both of these phenomenon. In this case radiation refers to the emission of photons with energy. The amount of energy emitted is described by a very simple formula:
So high energy photons, such as gammas that nuclear decays emit, carry a lot of energy. This is why gamma-rays and x-rays can be harmful. But low frequency waves such as infrared, microwaves, and radio waves carry much lower amounts of energy. The difference between a gamma-ray and a microwave can be almost 10 orders of magnitude.
Cells phones transmit their signals on microwaves. Cell towers emit radiation in the form a microwave photons and cells phone also emit radiation in the form of microwave photons. I use the term microwaves here not because the frequency of the cell phone transmission is the same as the waves in your kitchen microwave, but because they are higher in frequency than radio waves but smaller in freq. than infrared waves. They carry much less energy than the x-rays mentioned in your post. Cell phones also don't emit any alpha, beta, or neutrons in appreciable numbers.
So after reading all this are cell phones dangerous because they emit photons? Does the energy of said photons affect the human brain? I have no idea. But I just want you (guys) to understand the physics behind the word radiation. As we see it took a long post to explain what exactly a word that is often used but frequently misunderstood.
--Justice Potter Stewart
After some cursory googling, I was unable to find any webpage that substantiates this story, but it does seem that the sheep are privately owned. (This webpage briefly mentions the "privately owned sheep" at CERN.) If you (or anybody else) can point me to an authoritative explaination of the sheep, I'd appreciate it... :)
I was always told the sheep are natural lawn mowers. Think about it: they move around to different places on the lab site eating the grass to a certain level.
1) A constitutional amendment is required to dispose of the god awful electoral college.
Agreed, the Electoral College as it stands needs to be changed. But getting rid of it and placing a pure popular vote won't work well either. You'll meet lots of resistance with rural states and voters who will feel disenfranchised by large urban areas, and truthfully they will be under a popular vote system.
Keep in mind that under the US Constitution it is the states that vote for the President. That means that each state decided how to elect Electors to who actually vote for the President. It probably will not be possible to change this system drastically, but what we can change is how the states decide on the electors.
Right now 48 out of 50 states choose their Electors through a winner-take-all popular vote. Since it is winner-take-all, we get to label states as "red states" and "blue states," even though there are plenty of conservative voters in California and New York and plenty of liberal voters in Georgia and Texas. By changing the winner-take-all system employed by most states we can change how the Electoral College functions.
In fact in the past some states simply had their legislators choose their Electors without any popular vote, this occurred in many southern states during the Reconstruction period.
Maine and Nebraska use a congressional district system where the overall popular vote gives two electors for each candidate (representing the Senators) while the rest of the state is broken into congressional districts which vote in a winner-take-all system for an Elector for that "district." Maine has two congressional seats while Nebraska has three. This system is better but has some flaws. For one many congressional districts are Gerry-mandered to be purely controlled by one-party.
Another interesting idea is a proportional voting scheme where a states electoral votes are divided among the candidates proportionally. Lets take Colorado, which has such a ballot initiative this November.[1] The state has nine electoral votes and if the popular vote is split 52%-48% the elector votes are split 5-4. This system, if implemented nation-wide, would mean the candidates must campaign in all states and that third parties could win some electoral votes. In 1992 Ross Perot won 17% of the popular vote but did not receive one electoral vote. If this system had been in place than Bill Clinton would have only received about 230 electoral votes and the House of Representatives would have had to decide the election. There in lies the problem with this system which is that the Constitution requires a majority of the Electoral College to win the Presidency.
[1]This initiative is really a ploy by the Democrat's to get Kerry some electoral votes this November. If it passes it would apply to the current election which has all kinds of ex post facto (like) issues that would have to be resolved in the courts.
2) There needs to be legislation or a constitution amendment that prevents the two major parties from passing laws that prevent new parties from starting or gaining access to the ballot.
Having a minimum threshold on a political party is a good way to prevent extreme views from forming third-parties. That being said you are correct in that the two major political parties control the states and since it is the states who elect Representatives, Senators, and the President they can block out third parties.
That being said, it is at the state not the national level where third parties must originate. Having legislation, or amendments, that allows for the easy formation and propagation of third parties i
(1) the game isn't broadcast in their area. E.g., a Steelers fan who lives in Nebraska might not get the Steelers on their TV. The solution: NFL Sunday Ticket. "But that's exclusive to DirecTV?" says the NFL. Well whose fucking fault is that. There are plenty of people who would be willing to pay for NFL Sunday Ticket if it were available through Cable companies. They can't because the greedy NFL signs a multi-billion dollar contract with DirecTV. (I want Sunday Ticket, but my apartment faces north. I can't get DirecTV.)
Gregg Easterbrook of "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" pointed out in a column that fans in Canada and Mexico have access to NFL Sunday Ticket, or the equivalent service in their respective countries. And they don't have to be bound to a single service. In fact he reported that fans in Iran can get any game via satellite (NFL Sunday Ticket equivalent) without having to be bound to a single company either.