If you are expecting irrational, cartoonish hatred, this is not what I am talking about
What *are* you talking about?:)
Most people i've met while out of the country have either (a) viewed the US as just another country, with the problem that it is more arrogant than most, and had no dislike for individual Americans as individuals *at all*; or (b) desperately wanted to move here.
I've seen *disagreements* with the US --- just as we disagree with everyone else from time to time. But disagreement isn't hatred.
I am takling about a territory of Germany in any meaningful way...
So your assertion is that Germany did *not* provoke war with the US?
So some governments deserve sovereignty, soem don't and US is free to decide
Did I say that? Look, I think our policy towards Cuba is fucked up; it's probably the country in the world that has the most reason to be angry at us. That said, what we did in 1898 was something that *no other country with colonies was willing to do at the time*... so complaining about the presence of a base which we are leasing under an agreement signed with the legitimate government of Cuba is lame.
This was going on-and-off over decades after WWII -- never reaching the extent of open war before Milosevic/KLA
Exactly. Most *Americans* who have paid any attention to the issue at all blame the situation on Milosevic, whose attempts to suppress the minority in Kosovo --- like most attempts at repression --- created a backlash which *increased* the support of the KLA.
That mostly started after US interfered
True --- but we don't have any way of knowing if it would have happened *anyway*. Certainly similar things happened in Slavonia, Krajina, and eastern Bosnia, without the US interfering.
Albania was the worst place in Europe even in the time of peace
Granted --- it's one of the few places in the world i'm legitimately *afraid* to go.
Invasion in Normandy happened at the time when Germany was if not dead but lethally wounded -- there was no possible turn of events could end with Nazi surviving
Someone else has pointed out that there were years of planning for the invasion. But... in 1945, the Nazis had developed:
* bombers capable of reaching New York and flying back to Germany * guided air-to-air missiles * short-launch helicopter planes * stealth technology
Sure, their economy was wrecked and their infantry was lagging. But their *technology* was good enough that if the war had gone on six months longer they would have started to push back --- and if they'd been able to concentrate *all* of their military on Russia instead of dividing it on two sides, they would have been able to hold off the invasion. (Similarly, if Russia had sued for peace the way it did in 1917, and Germany had been free to concentrate all of its military on Normandy, the allies would have been pushed back into the water).
I'm aware that this contradicts what you learned in school. I've got a Russian friend (ethnic Russian, grew up in Moldova) who was *shocked* when I pointed out that Poland at one point had stretched as far east as Smolensk --- he wasn't taught *that*, either.
I think it's just incorrect to say we're:"universally hated"
My experience says otherwise.
Could you share your experience with us? I've spent a significant portion of my life overseas, in just about every country in western and central europe (including Croatia); while I have percieved a great deal of frustration with American *arrogance*, I have met only one person that I thought blindly hated this country and its people. From what I can tell, it's *not* universal.
All countries invaded by US in its history except Japan were weaker than US -- and only Japan happened to actually start a war with US.
Arguably Germany started a war with the US; it declared war as soon as we declared war on Japan.
Considering that Cuba, the most US-hating country in the world, has a US military base on its territory...
Are you aware of the conditions under which that base came into existence? We fought a (probably unnecessary) war with Spain -- as a result of which we ended up with control of Cuba. Instead of turning it into a colony (which Spain had done), we made it an independant country, and leased the base from them --- and that government was quite happy about the arrangement.
It wasn't until after the government was overthrown that the base became an issue.
If US wouldn't interfere, Serbs would defeat KLA (killing some but mostly frightening the rest, causing them to disband), keep the control over Kosovo, and would be forced to give some semi-autonomy to Kosovo, letting some Albanians into local governmental structures.
Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just blather? Since the Serbs had essentially forced all Albanians out of government structures *ten years before the war*, and had denied the peopel living there *the right to teach in their own language*, and had gone to great extents to drive non-Serbs out of the parts of Croatia and Bosnia under their control, I think the outcome you paint is unlikely.
More likely --- and what we were afraid of --- was the Serbs driving the Albanians out, causing a massive refugee crisis in Albania (a country which is *awash* in guns because of a brief civil war a couple of years ago which followed on the heels of the collapse of a popular pyramid scheme) and Macedonia, and destablizing both countries.
Yes, this is a modern-day domino effect. And it's reasonable to question if it would have happened that way --- certainly the refugee crisis which *did* happen failed to destabilize either country. But... there's *no* evidence at all that I can detect that the Milosevic government would have done *anything at all* to bring the Kosovars back into the government or give them back the autonomy which they had had until his government came to power.
What lives are endangered by releasing a report from a covert operation which happened *47 years ago*?
The guys who were spying for us then are almost certainly dead by now: we're only protecting their tombs.
(The federal government has a serious problem with overclassifying documents; hell, there are still classified documents from *the spanish american war*. The whining by the CIA over the dangers of releasing this information is like the whining of the little boy who cried wolf).
The rest of the article talks about all the legal hassles that you have to do to get the domain you want, but alludes to nothing more on searching for alternate domains.
As it should -- it's *not* a technical article, or an internet culture article; it's a *legal* article. It's intended to talk about what your options are, with respect to the legal system, once you have decided there is a conflict between your desire and someone else's.
How is it lawful for the SCOTUS to deprive a person the right to express religious speech freely in a public place? Isn't that a violation of a citizen's right to liberty and happiness?..free speech? Isn't this a case of the court stating what kind of speech is ok and what is not?
The decision clearly does not deprive a person of the right to express religious speech freely. It prevents the state (ie., the school district) from selecting *one person* to express an opinion *representing the entire school*, said opinion reasonably expected to be religious, at an event paid for by the state (school district) as part of the normal conduct of the state (school district).
It's the distinction between me asserting the right to read excerpts from the Tao in a public square (free) and me expecting to be able to read excerpts from the Tao over a loudspeaker paid for by a school at a school sporting event (not allowed); the latter constitutes a state establishment.
I'm not denying that there's an inherent tension between the way the establishment clause is interpreted and the way the free exercise clause is interpreted: i wrote a paper in a constitutional law class which argued that the easiest way out is to abolish public schools. But, unless something that drastic is done, the SCOTUS has to thread a narrow path between two conflicting goals --- and, as far as I can tell, appears to be doing a reasonable job of it.
Federal) Congress shall make no law.. the states are left to do this. The federal government does not have jurisdiction here, the constitution states that items not listed here are left to the states.
That *may* have been true once. But the SCOTUS has *clearly* stated, time and time again for almost half a century, that the guarantee in the 14th amendment that "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" *extends* various amendments to cover the states; the first is included in that list.
The legal argument for this is reasonably sound, and is based upon things that were said in the debate over approval of the amendment (in Congress) and ratification (by the states).
I hate people saying that religion is being forced upon them just because it is within their site.
That's fine for *me* --- but for a child to go to school, and respect/listen to what their teachers say, and then have those teachers/principals/etc turn around and espouse religious beliefs *is* to force religion upon them; what, the child is supposed to suddenly stop listening as soon as the subject changes?
Amendments to the constitution "shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution".
Granted, but legal scholars *still* refer to them as individual entities, the same way they would refer to 'Article IV Section 3' or 'the due process clause'.
In California at least (and it may differ in your state), schools are run out of local districts whose governing bodies are elected (in elections paid for by the county government) with money given to them by the state (out of tax revenue collected by the counties and appropriated by the state), and children are required by state law to attend.
Since they are wholly funded by the state and are run by elected officials selected in *exactly* the same manner as city councilmen and county supervisors, how are schools *not* part of the government?
What was banned is allowing students to elect someone to speak for them because they might say something religious.
Did you *read* the decision? The majority was quite clear to state that while the *form* of the system they overturned was "choose if we should have a speaker and then choose who it should be", it was nevertheless understood implicitly by everyone involved that it was about religion. (This is in much the same way that, while Syria has "elections", the outcome is preordained).
Chief Justice wrote a scathing dissenting opinion that truly exposes the decision for what it really is: the pigeon-holing of religion as a purely private matter rather than the basis for American society as it was in the beginning.
That's not the way I read the dissent: as far as I could tell, his argument --- which I think has merit, by the way --- was that it was unreasonable to challenge the law *before anyone was given a chance to speak* --- ie., even if you grant that religious invocations would be unconstitutional, you should have to wait until someone actually gives one before challenging the law, which didn't happen in this case, as the law was challenged *immediately*.
I'm probably getting dragged into a flame war here, but...
I'm a taoist. I do *not* believe in Christ, or Christian theology. I am required by law to send any children I have to public school, or otherwise provide schooling for them *in a manner acceptable to the state*.
How is having school officials perform religious acts *not* constituting an 'establishment of religion', and how does it not deprive me of religious freedom?
They will be off from next week until the first Monday in October
Probably. There are two obstacles: (1) there are about a dozen and a half cases not yet handed down, so unless they're all handed down next week, the recess doesn't start until sometime in July (this isn't abnormal). (2) in *rare* cases the court meets in summer session --- as an example, see the Nixon tapes case.
It's very easy to advocate ballance or limited copyrights when you're not the one shelling out millions of dollars trying to create a useful product only to have groups of pirates stealing your work.
Sure. But it's *absurd* to say that if I were to draw a painting of something that *your grandfather* created *fifty years ago*, you would be somehow injured --- yet, if your grandfather had been a writer, I would be in violation of his copyright.
As a developer, I find the basic architecture and startup-phase of a new project very important - and also the most enjoyable.
I'm a bit different --- I enjoy taking systems that I don't understand and analyzing them until I do understand them. Bug fixing is fun --- until I understand the system, then it becomes boring...
After many long hours debugging why their program segfaults when given an input of 64910 characters long, but only if it doesn't contain the letter a and it's an even-numbered day, some programmers understandably... lose it.
That's the reason why modern bug tracking systems have an "I don't care, fix it yourself" option for the developer to check.:)
Make the product bigger! Make a push for people to suppy manuals with software, like they used to in the old days!:-)
You *really* do not want that. You want downloadable manuals instead --- the problem is that a manual typically has to go to print 4-6 weeks (in the best case) before the CD is burned.
A lot changes in 4-6 weeks of development time, especially in an industry where a 1-year development cycle is average. Unless you can *enforce* a code freeze for that time (and if you can, I want to know how you do it), printed manuals = wrong manuals.
Roosevelt supported Britain during that period in spite of great opposition from the Senate and the populace.
Granted. There were two problems: (a) traditional US isolationism (which you can see cropping up again recently, btw);
(b) a large German expat community which still supported the fatherland --- and did until Pearl Harbor, when everything changed.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor has to be one of the biggest military blunders of all time --- there wasn't sufficient support in the States for involvement in the war, and wouldn't have been, if we hadn't been attacked.
So the idea that if the USA hadn't entered the war, the UK would have been invaded is crap.
The UK was only able to fight in 1939-1940 because the US had been loaning it massive sums of money --- which was politically unpopular, and got a lot of people pissed off at Roosevelt.
Slashdot Mirror
Invading a sovereign country has nothing to do with 'freedom', no matter what the invader thinks of himself
Never?
I would argue that the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (which expelled the Khmer Rouge) was a great leap forward for freedom.
If you are expecting irrational, cartoonish hatred, this is not what I am talking about
:)
...
... so complaining about the presence of a base which we are leasing under an agreement signed with the legitimate government of Cuba is lame.
What *are* you talking about?
Most people i've met while out of the country have either (a) viewed the US as just another country, with the problem that it is more arrogant than most, and had no dislike for individual Americans as individuals *at all*; or (b) desperately wanted to move here.
I've seen *disagreements* with the US --- just as we disagree with everyone else from time to time. But disagreement isn't hatred.
I am takling about a territory of Germany in any meaningful way
So your assertion is that Germany did *not* provoke war with the US?
So some governments deserve sovereignty, soem don't and US is free to decide
Did I say that? Look, I think our policy towards Cuba is fucked up; it's probably the country in the world that has the most reason to be angry at us. That said, what we did in 1898 was something that *no other country with colonies was willing to do at the time*
This was going on-and-off over decades after WWII -- never reaching the extent of open war before Milosevic/KLA
Exactly. Most *Americans* who have paid any attention to the issue at all blame the situation on Milosevic, whose attempts to suppress the minority in Kosovo --- like most attempts at repression --- created a backlash which *increased* the support of the KLA.
That mostly started after US interfered
True --- but we don't have any way of knowing if it would have happened *anyway*. Certainly similar things happened in Slavonia, Krajina, and eastern Bosnia, without the US interfering.
Albania was the worst place in Europe even in the time of peace
Granted --- it's one of the few places in the world i'm legitimately *afraid* to go.
Invasion in Normandy happened at the time when Germany was if not dead but lethally wounded -- there was no possible turn of events could end with Nazi surviving
... in 1945, the Nazis had developed:
Someone else has pointed out that there were years of planning for the invasion. But
* bombers capable of reaching New York and flying back to Germany
* guided air-to-air missiles
* short-launch helicopter planes
* stealth technology
Sure, their economy was wrecked and their infantry was lagging. But their *technology* was good enough that if the war had gone on six months longer they would have started to push back --- and if they'd been able to concentrate *all* of their military on Russia instead of dividing it on two sides, they would have been able to hold off the invasion. (Similarly, if Russia had sued for peace the way it did in 1917, and Germany had been free to concentrate all of its military on Normandy, the allies would have been pushed back into the water).
I'm aware that this contradicts what you learned in school. I've got a Russian friend (ethnic Russian, grew up in Moldova) who was *shocked* when I pointed out that Poland at one point had stretched as far east as Smolensk --- he wasn't taught *that*, either.
I think it's just incorrect to say we're :"universally hated"
...
My experience says otherwise.
Could you share your experience with us? I've spent a significant portion of my life overseas, in just about every country in western and central europe (including Croatia); while I have percieved a great deal of frustration with American *arrogance*, I have met only one person that I thought blindly hated this country and its people. From what I can tell, it's *not* universal.
All countries invaded by US in its history except Japan were weaker than US -- and only Japan happened to actually start a war with US.
Arguably Germany started a war with the US; it declared war as soon as we declared war on Japan.
Considering that Cuba, the most US-hating country in the world, has a US military base on its territory
Are you aware of the conditions under which that base came into existence? We fought a (probably unnecessary) war with Spain -- as a result of which we ended up with control of Cuba. Instead of turning it into a colony (which Spain had done), we made it an independant country, and leased the base from them --- and that government was quite happy about the arrangement.
It wasn't until after the government was overthrown that the base became an issue.
If US wouldn't interfere, Serbs would defeat KLA (killing some but mostly frightening the rest, causing them to disband), keep the control over Kosovo, and would be forced to give some semi-autonomy to Kosovo, letting some Albanians into local governmental structures.
... there's *no* evidence at all that I can detect that the Milosevic government would have done *anything at all* to bring the Kosovars back into the government or give them back the autonomy which they had had until his government came to power.
Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just blather? Since the Serbs had essentially forced all Albanians out of government structures *ten years before the war*, and had denied the peopel living there *the right to teach in their own language*, and had gone to great extents to drive non-Serbs out of the parts of Croatia and Bosnia under their control, I think the outcome you paint is unlikely.
More likely --- and what we were afraid of --- was the Serbs driving the Albanians out, causing a massive refugee crisis in Albania (a country which is *awash* in guns because of a brief civil war a couple of years ago which followed on the heels of the collapse of a popular pyramid scheme) and Macedonia, and destablizing both countries.
Yes, this is a modern-day domino effect. And it's reasonable to question if it would have happened that way --- certainly the refugee crisis which *did* happen failed to destabilize either country. But
What lives are endangered by releasing a report from a covert operation which happened *47 years ago*?
The guys who were spying for us then are almost certainly dead by now: we're only protecting their tombs.
(The federal government has a serious problem with overclassifying documents; hell, there are still classified documents from *the spanish american war*. The whining by the CIA over the dangers of releasing this information is like the whining of the little boy who cried wolf).
The rest of the article talks about all the legal hassles that you have to do to get the domain you want, but alludes to nothing more on searching for alternate domains.
As it should -- it's *not* a technical article, or an internet culture article; it's a *legal* article. It's intended to talk about what your options are, with respect to the legal system, once you have decided there is a conflict between your desire and someone else's.
How is it lawful for the SCOTUS to deprive a person the right to express religious speech freely in a public place? Isn't that a violation of a citizen's right to liberty and happiness?..free speech? Isn't this a case of the court stating what kind of speech is ok and what is not?
The decision clearly does not deprive a person of the right to express religious speech freely. It prevents the state (ie., the school district) from selecting *one person* to express an opinion *representing the entire school*, said opinion reasonably expected to be religious, at an event paid for by the state (school district) as part of the normal conduct of the state (school district).
It's the distinction between me asserting the right to read excerpts from the Tao in a public square (free) and me expecting to be able to read excerpts from the Tao over a loudspeaker paid for by a school at a school sporting event (not allowed); the latter constitutes a state establishment.
I'm not denying that there's an inherent tension between the way the establishment clause is interpreted and the way the free exercise clause is interpreted: i wrote a paper in a constitutional law class which argued that the easiest way out is to abolish public schools. But, unless something that drastic is done, the SCOTUS has to thread a narrow path between two conflicting goals --- and, as far as I can tell, appears to be doing a reasonable job of it.
Federal) Congress shall make no law..
the states are left to do this. The federal government does not have jurisdiction here, the constitution states that items not listed here are left to the states.
That *may* have been true once. But the SCOTUS has *clearly* stated, time and time again for almost half a century, that the guarantee in the 14th amendment that "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" *extends* various amendments to cover the states; the first is included in that list.
The legal argument for this is reasonably sound, and is based upon things that were said in the debate over approval of the amendment (in Congress) and ratification (by the states).
I actually agree with the prior restraint argument --- this case should not have been actionable until someone actually gave a religious statement.
However, I agree with the court's assertion that *everyone knew the intent was religious*, and so it constituted an establishment.
I hate people saying that religion is being forced upon them just because it is within their site.
That's fine for *me* --- but for a child to go to school, and respect/listen to what their teachers say, and then have those teachers/principals/etc turn around and espouse religious beliefs *is* to force religion upon them; what, the child is supposed to suddenly stop listening as soon as the subject changes?
Amendments to the constitution "shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution".
Granted, but legal scholars *still* refer to them as individual entities, the same way they would refer to 'Article IV Section 3' or 'the due process clause'.
Since when are schools parts of the Goverment?
In California at least (and it may differ in your state), schools are run out of local districts whose governing bodies are elected (in elections paid for by the county government) with money given to them by the state (out of tax revenue collected by the counties and appropriated by the state), and children are required by state law to attend.
Since they are wholly funded by the state and are run by elected officials selected in *exactly* the same manner as city councilmen and county supervisors, how are schools *not* part of the government?
What was banned is allowing students to elect
someone to speak for them because they might say something religious.
Did you *read* the decision? The majority was quite clear to state that while the *form* of the system they overturned was "choose if we should have a speaker and then choose who it should be", it was nevertheless understood implicitly by everyone involved that it was about religion. (This is in much the same way that, while Syria has "elections", the outcome is preordained).
Chief Justice wrote a scathing dissenting
opinion that truly exposes the decision for what it really is: the pigeon-holing of religion as
a purely private matter rather than the basis for American society as it was in the beginning.
That's not the way I read the dissent: as far as I could tell, his argument --- which I think has merit, by the way --- was that it was unreasonable to challenge the law *before anyone was given a chance to speak* --- ie., even if you grant that religious invocations would be unconstitutional, you should have to wait until someone actually gives one before challenging the law, which didn't happen in this case, as the law was challenged *immediately*.
I'm probably getting dragged into a flame war here, but ...
I'm a taoist. I do *not* believe in Christ, or Christian theology. I am required by law to send any children I have to public school, or otherwise provide schooling for them *in a manner acceptable to the state*.
How is having school officials perform religious acts *not* constituting an 'establishment of religion', and how does it not deprive me of religious freedom?
They will be off from next week until the first Monday in October
Probably. There are two obstacles: (1) there are about a dozen and a half cases not yet handed down, so unless they're all handed down next week, the recess doesn't start until sometime in July (this isn't abnormal). (2) in *rare* cases the court meets in summer session --- as an example, see the Nixon tapes case.
It's very easy to advocate ballance or limited copyrights when you're not the one shelling out millions of dollars trying to create a useful product only to have groups of pirates stealing your work.
Sure. But it's *absurd* to say that if I were to draw a painting of something that *your grandfather* created *fifty years ago*, you would be somehow injured --- yet, if your grandfather had been a writer, I would be in violation of his copyright.
Oops.
I don't remember how to escape angle brackets in html, so:
template [angle]class T[angle]
int& bar[angle]int[angle]::operator +(int& ref) {/* */}
Umm... Java is pure C/C++ syntax.
... a *simplified* c++ syntax, i'd believe. But there are all sorts of things you can do in c++ that you can't in Java. For example:
/* */ };
Er
template
int & bar::operator +(int& ref) {
As a developer, I find the basic architecture and startup-phase of a new project very important - and also the most enjoyable.
...
I'm a bit different --- I enjoy taking systems that I don't understand and analyzing them until I do understand them. Bug fixing is fun --- until I understand the system, then it becomes boring
After many long hours debugging why their program segfaults when given an input of 64910 characters long, but only if it doesn't contain the letter a and it's an even-numbered day, some programmers understandably... lose it.
:)
That's the reason why modern bug tracking systems have an "I don't care, fix it yourself" option for the developer to check.
Make the product bigger! Make a push for people to suppy manuals with software, like they used to in the old days! :-)
...
You *really* do not want that. You want downloadable manuals instead --- the problem is that a manual typically has to go to print 4-6 weeks (in the best case) before the CD is burned.
A lot changes in 4-6 weeks of development time, especially in an industry where a 1-year development cycle is average. Unless you can *enforce* a code freeze for that time (and if you can, I want to know how you do it), printed manuals = wrong manuals.
Softcopy is your friend
Roosevelt supported Britain during that period in spite of great opposition from the Senate and the populace.
Granted. There were two problems:
(a) traditional US isolationism (which you can
see cropping up again recently, btw);
(b) a large German expat community which still supported the fatherland --- and did until Pearl Harbor, when everything changed.
The bombing of Pearl Harbor has to be one of the biggest military blunders of all time --- there wasn't sufficient support in the States for involvement in the war, and wouldn't have been, if we hadn't been attacked.
So the idea that if the USA hadn't entered the war, the UK would have been invaded is crap.
The UK was only able to fight in 1939-1940 because the US had been loaning it massive sums of money --- which was politically unpopular, and got a lot of people pissed off at Roosevelt.