In the War of 1812, the USA managed a classic example of sophmoric diplomacy. France and England were having a trade dispute, we refused to take sides, and we wound up going to war with England over it.
The English army, not fighting the french at the time, was able to put its skilled troops to bear on the USA. The result was a rather humbling war, that included the burning of the White House. The elementary school tales focus on how the First Lady (I don't remember her name) saved as many artifacts from the fire as she could; most of these, IIRC, are now either in the Smithsonian or back in the (rebuilt) White House (which, according to legend, was painted white only after being rebuilt; prior to this, it was simply the "Exectuive Mansion.")
The War of 1812 finally ended when the Federal Government and England were able to come to terms over their trade dispute. Due to the abyssmal packet transmission time of sailing ships, the greatest American victory of the war took place after the war was actually ended.
As for other "Wars that we didn't win," Congress has been rather lax in actually declaring war. To the best of my knowledge, the USA has had the following "real wars."
American Revolution: Won War of 1812: Lost Civil War: Won Spanish-American War: Won "The War with Mexico": Won World War I: Won World War II: Also, won. Korean War: Stalemate Vietnam War: Lost Gulf War: Won Conquest of Afghanistan: Won
Pretty good record, if you ask me.
AFAIK, the Vietnam war wasn't actually declared by Congress, but Congress gave their tacit approval by granting the President "War-making powers." In a simliar vein, the war in Afghanistan, being part of the Congressional Decree telling the president to "take the necessary steps", counts as a declared war.
Ambiguous, ongoing crusades (War on Drugs, War on Terror) minor military escapades (Invasion of Panama, "Antiterrorism", Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraqi No-Fly Zone), and extended periods of conflict (Cold War & Manifest Destiny) are hardly what we would consider "Wars." I guess the best way to judge what is and is not a war would be the involvement of the public, and not simply military action.
Of course, we're the single strongest country in the world, and the last time American Soil (one of the 50 states) was attacked and *not* followed up by a successful war was the War of 1812, which was largely our own dumb fault.
The example is poetry... At one time poets were well paid and could achieve a certain amount of fame and occaisional hefty profits for their work. Nowdays very few poets can "make a living" solely from their art. People still write poems, but the high availability of cheap publishing ensures that they won't make much money at it.
Poetry's a bad example. The talent simply left poetry for clearer mediums--motion pictures and songwriting, to name two.
There is not, today, an effective way to distribute poetry and be compensated for it--and thus, the most talented poets are urged by the basic unit of our society to not be Poets, but rather Songwriters or Authors or Scriptwriters.
Shakesphere was paid very well for his work. Tolkien's estate is paid very well for his work. Micelangelo and Leonardo were, also, paid very well for their work. From personal experience, I do not believe that the best art humans can achieve can be done in "spare time." Unless there is a financial profit to be possibly had, judicious time management tells the poet to *only* write as a recreational activity, and that means it takes quite a back seat to a lot of other things.
That said, I think I'm going to indulge a little on wagering in the salability of my own art...
I can't be bothered with a bootable CD-ROM on a 'doze box
What, an image of your install CD isn't good enough for you?
Almost every real MS OS CD I've seen in the past five years is bootable. The last one I saw that *wasn't* bootable was a Windows 95 disk--and I've seen 95 CDs that boot.
Modern "'doze" NT-based OSes have all bootable install CDs.
Re:Economic reasons to scare John Q. Public
on
What, Me Worry?
·
· Score: 2
I hadn't heard that before, but even a few hundred years ago it wouldn't have made enough sense for me to buy into it.
That's exactly what happened, actually. The Federal Government took on the debts of the states, thus consolidating all foreign interest in its existance, and not the existance of the states themselves.
And right now, I can't see why we are so averse to trying to pay off our debts.
We're not. It's just that we let politicians handle the money, and we've got a little thing called a *war* that's going on, eating at our budget.
Re:Economic reasons to scare John Q. Public
on
What, Me Worry?
·
· Score: 1
It simply makes things seem alright now while raping the future.
The government simply cannot delcare bankruptcy.
If the government would be displaced, its replacement government is highly unlikely to assume its predecessor's debts.
Thus, a defcit spending gives the debtors a stake in the continuing power of the government.
This was a tactic employed in the earliest days of the nation. I haven't the foggiest idea why we're still following it, considering we can take any two countries with a two-day notice.
* MS Messenger is running in the tray -- asking you sign up for Passport when you 1st log on
Well, yeah. That's MS pitching their IM. It's easy to get rid of.
* Windows Media Player is crippled so you can't make good MP3s (or on XP even download and use som other MP3 making software)
What? I'm on XP, and I get MP3 making software easilly.
* OEMs install dozens of bullshit programs, many of which launch on boot-up and leave their menus all over the screen
So get rid of them, or demand a "clean" install disk. Dell's good for this, and so are screwdriver shops.
* A bunch of crap litters the "Send to" right-click menu
That's a folder of shortcuts. Anthing you can drag a file to and open a progam with you can put in the "Send To" folder.
* MS Media player acts like some weird-ass app with no menu, no window, etc...
oro? Never seen that before...
It takes a LONG time to get things cleaned up and usable. You used to be able to just wipe the disk and install Windows from scratch, but more and more OEMs are not allowing thins, only giving you some crappy RESTORE disks...
An hour is a long time?
OEMs started giving crappy restore disks when CD-ROMs came out. Where have you been?
If you want a good, clean system, *don't buy from OEMS!*
Only because you're encoded the conclusion into the premise. Perhaps there are many powerful beings who created the world and want to be worshipped. Why assume there's only one? Look at the world around you. It was obviously designed by a committee...:)
Lol.
I think Pascal's wager is best limited to "should I believe?" Although a more complex variant is necessary...
Either:
There are powerful creator(s) that have expressed how they desire us to act through religion
There are powerful creators(s), but they have not expressed their desire for us to act through religion
There are no powerful creator(s).
Our choice is either "believe", or "not believe." Finding out the exact state of what to believe can probably be accomplished by simple consultation with the established holy-men of the day, as all weight given by this gamble to religion is only in the "instruction book" value of religon.
(1) has, obviously, infinite rewards and finite costs.
(2) has finite rewards and finite costs.
(3) has finite rewards and highly variable costs.
(If the powers-that-be wanted us to follow a set pattern, we can assume that they would communicate this to us.)
The costs of (1) and (2) are nothing more than the burdens of following a religion--which are much less today than they were in Pascal's day. They also have a guaranteed finite rewards, in the personal social and societal social benefits that religion grants.
(3) is a tricky one. Its rewards are nothing more than freedom from the costs of (1) and (2), while its costs range from simple loss of the finite benefits of (1) and (2) to possible loss of infinite reward and / or infinite punnishment.
The hole in this argument, of course, is the values of the cost of (1) and (2), waged against their finite benefits.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a prophet, to realize that if there's an all-powerful being that created the world and wants to be worshiped, there's only *one* of them.
The question of "is there a God" is a different one than "What's God like?" AFAIK, he's a bloodthirsty indian elder-spirit, who for some reason wants Christians to worship as a nice guy who hung on a cross.
These, moreso than anything else you mentioned, pose a direct harm to those around you when you smoke.
All the rest of them have Big Problems associated with them--problems best solved, oddly enough, by throwing money at them. Counseling for alcoholism. Support of the NRA & other gun-training programs. Regulatory oversight for cigarette manufacturers.
It's much better to legaize & regulate dangerous things that people are using than it is to try and outlaw them. Look at Prohibition.
As for the gov't--it might not have to watch me and you, but someone needs to watch the wackos. I'd rather have the gov't watching everyone than everyone watching each other.
Depends on what you mean by "forever." Yes, eventually this solar system will be quite different than what we know.
But we have *no* way of knowing how long the stabilizing effects of mass media and popular culture (mostly by unification of the populace) will allow the current political structure to continue.
Even better, given the sheer inertia of the modern infrastrucutre--something that's wholly different that what Rome & Britain had--we might have a grand political upheval and, in day-to-day life, not even notice it.
But why should we assume that war is going to happen?
Because war *does* happen. Not necessarilly with us, but it does happen--and when we just leave warlike people along long enough, we eventually get bombed.
To being with, hold the rights of workers, consumers, and communties, and the care of the environment, above the interests of corporations.
Ah. A basic changing of the legal system. Very ambitious and long-term, but so were woman's lib and the abolition of slavery.
I think bruises would be the least of one's concerns in swordfighting...
Not really. The science of armor advanced to the point where it was quite equal to the sword, and an opponent has to work pretty darn hard to actually hurt someone wearing it.
I understand the SCA has quite a good safety record, considering they have guys in armor swinging swords at each other as a recreational activity.
Oh, and then there are *training swords* that don't have the sharp edges. And boffers. (toy "swords" made from some things easily obtainable at a hardware shop, that are far less effective than a fist when it comes to hurting someone.)
After the American Revolution, when our very form of government inspired the French revolt against their monarchy and the increased pace of GB's conversion to a near-democracy.
After World War I, when our president outlined a fair and just plan that would have prevented WWII, not the vengence-ridden agreement that was imposed by those of greater healthy.
After World War II, when we helped turn Germany and Japan into the industrial powerhouses that they are today.
After the Cold War, when we embraced Russia as a friend and offered as much as we could to aid them--this, a country who's former government had been opposed to everything that we hold dear.
Yes, we have done some pretty nasty things as a country. But we've also done some good things, and there was a time when our view of ourselves was shaped by those, and not the cynical journalists that try and shape it today.
(And I am well aware of our time-honored tradition of injustice to "lesser peoples," like the Indians. Unless you have a time travel device, please don't try and bring that up in refutation.)
Oh? Roman and British Imperialism came to end, and so will the United States. Don't be so short-sighted to think that our empire is so righteous that it will last forever - it won't.
Rome failed because it did not have a viable peacetime way of expanding and living.
Britain failed because it decided it didn't want to be an empire, it wanted to be a country.
Also, what's with putting the word imperialism in quotes? Look it up then look in a mirror.
We're not, today, an Empire. If we were, Afkhanistan would be a US territory right now, and it isn't.
We're a "something else," with no legal control over our "colonies." We don't manage them for our benefit, but for theirs. (Look at Germany or Japan and tell me we managed them for our own selfish benefit.)
There *is* a distinct difference between what America is and what Rome or GB were. Rome died. GB became the British Commonwealth. We might just stick around in our current form forever--especially if we succeed in (somehow) bringing the third world up to the standard of the first.
'course, that's a pretty big "if." Not quite as big as "if we can kill everyone that gets in our way," though.
That's why there's a Green Party. We accept no corporate money.
Refusing to take the means that get the big two elected is probably what keeps the Green Party from wining.:( Then again...
That keeps us focused on the things the US really needs: renewable energy,
Good.
taxes on "bads," not goods
Good idea for the short term, but I want my gov't getting money from things that we WANT to have, so they encourage those things. Maybe a flat tax on everything we want to encourage, and penalty taxes on "bads" whose extra ammounts are funneled into getting rid of said bad...
an end to overseas military bases,
Actually, as long as war is going to happen, I'd rather it be over there than over here. USA wouldn't be where we are if we weren't willing to go out and fight battles for other folks. Doing so makes the world a (very slightly) better place, and ensures our security against military threats by displaying our prowess regularly...
'course, solving the "security from wackos" would be nice too. But wackos, to date, have killed fewer Americans than hostile nations...
a government that sees people as citizens, not consumers (and increasingly, prisoners)
Well, that's intersting. What, pray tell, does the government have to do to change that?
Actually, it's a pretty clear cut legal term. The arguments come in on what rights are universal, optionable, and scarce.
I cannot see how my profits can in anyway affect your world's habitability. There are other things I could do to reduce that, but my making a profit is not one of them.
Simple. When you sacrafice the world's habitability to increase your profits, you are affecting my right to an inhabitable world.
Yes, there are other ways to make a buck--but the legal system seems to scream that your "right" to run your business for your own profit is superceded by the duties of environmental responsibilites. Or in other words, as long as your *don't* infringe on the rights of everyone else, you can make all the profit you want.
1: I'm a cheap SOB who doesn't want to shell out $ every time I want to make a PC play music. Being able to legally configure my PCs is an incentive to switch formats.
2: If they are smaller file sizes, that means I'll have easier backups--which is a good thing for me.
Gee, let's compare apples and dead fish why don't we. Are you arguing that it is your individual right that corporations should lose money?
Shesh. Buy a clue.
Everyone's got a whole bunch of "rights", and most of the legal system is focused on ordering those rights. To wit: My right of free speech is outweighted by your right to not be slandered. Your right to own a gun is outweighted by my right not to have a known felon carrying one.
Your right to maximize profits is outweighed (for the larger part) by my right to live in a habitable world.
The biggest fights are between private citizens--who want to protect their indivdual liberties and thus improve their quality of life--and corporations--who want to maximize their profits and thus improve their stockholder's quality of life.
Eventually, a balance will be achieved. This balance will then last until someone gets upset with it, and convinced enough other dissenting opinions to change the balance. This is the process we call progress, and it's how we got from a wild wilderness to the richest country on the planet in just a few centuries.
"New format" against "format with a lot of tapes allready." Content providers failed to support Beta, so the market went to VHS, where people could actually watch movies.
LD over VHS
Oh, let me think--"flip the huge, easily breakable and expensive disk four times in a movie" against "stick in and hit play--or even record." Not even a contest for anyone except fanatics with money to burn.
Mac (and others) over MS OS
MS ships on a larger variety of configurations, and can be had for a lower cost point--and this has been the case ever since Windows came out.
Mac is *just now* getting to a price point where it can compete--and it's doing quite well for itself.
MD over CD
See Beta v. VHS.
In the case of MP3 v. Ogg, they're both conusmer-level formats. MP3s aren't sold in any meaningful fashion, and that means that Ogg just needs some hardware support to take over.
If Ogg files really are smaller for the same quality, expect a switch--when someone big (Sony / MS / Apple) holds it up and says "look, we can fit more on a drive the same cost!" and offers it, just as an option, it'll take off.
Until then, I'm off to find a good Ogg ripper so I can re-do my collection.
Which country has been invaded by the Christian church again?
OH--you mean the ones that America's invaded. No, go ahead and have problems with my country--just don't forget that little "seperation of church and state" law that keeps the two apart.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, I'm an American.
In the War of 1812, the USA managed a classic example of sophmoric diplomacy. France and England were having a trade dispute, we refused to take sides, and we wound up going to war with England over it.
The English army, not fighting the french at the time, was able to put its skilled troops to bear on the USA. The result was a rather humbling war, that included the burning of the White House. The elementary school tales focus on how the First Lady (I don't remember her name) saved as many artifacts from the fire as she could; most of these, IIRC, are now either in the Smithsonian or back in the (rebuilt) White House (which, according to legend, was painted white only after being rebuilt; prior to this, it was simply the "Exectuive Mansion.")
The War of 1812 finally ended when the Federal Government and England were able to come to terms over their trade dispute. Due to the abyssmal packet transmission time of sailing ships, the greatest American victory of the war took place after the war was actually ended.
As for other "Wars that we didn't win," Congress has been rather lax in actually declaring war. To the best of my knowledge, the USA has had the following "real wars."
American Revolution: Won
War of 1812: Lost
Civil War: Won
Spanish-American War: Won
"The War with Mexico": Won
World War I: Won
World War II: Also, won.
Korean War: Stalemate
Vietnam War: Lost
Gulf War: Won
Conquest of Afghanistan: Won
Pretty good record, if you ask me.
AFAIK, the Vietnam war wasn't actually declared by Congress, but Congress gave their tacit approval by granting the President "War-making powers." In a simliar vein, the war in Afghanistan, being part of the Congressional Decree telling the president to "take the necessary steps", counts as a declared war.
Ambiguous, ongoing crusades (War on Drugs, War on Terror) minor military escapades (Invasion of Panama, "Antiterrorism", Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraqi No-Fly Zone), and extended periods of conflict (Cold War & Manifest Destiny) are hardly what we would consider "Wars." I guess the best way to judge what is and is not a war would be the involvement of the public, and not simply military action.
Of course, we're the single strongest country in the world, and the last time American Soil (one of the 50 states) was attacked and *not* followed up by a successful war was the War of 1812, which was largely our own dumb fault.
Part of why the US isn't a true democracy is because the majority typically overules the minority.
No, that's democratic--majority rule.
We're not a TRUE democracy because the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority. It's better this way.
The example is poetry... At one time poets were well paid and could achieve a certain amount of fame and occaisional hefty profits for their work. Nowdays very few poets can "make a living" solely from their art. People still write poems, but the high availability of cheap publishing ensures that they won't make much money at it.
Poetry's a bad example. The talent simply left poetry for clearer mediums--motion pictures and songwriting, to name two.
There is not, today, an effective way to distribute poetry and be compensated for it--and thus, the most talented poets are urged by the basic unit of our society to not be Poets, but rather Songwriters or Authors or Scriptwriters.
Shakesphere was paid very well for his work. Tolkien's estate is paid very well for his work. Micelangelo and Leonardo were, also, paid very well for their work. From personal experience, I do not believe that the best art humans can achieve can be done in "spare time." Unless there is a financial profit to be possibly had, judicious time management tells the poet to *only* write as a recreational activity, and that means it takes quite a back seat to a lot of other things.
That said, I think I'm going to indulge a little on wagering in the salability of my own art...
Disk images rule. Install disks drool :)
;)
And a floppy disk would be better why?
I can't be bothered with a bootable CD-ROM on a 'doze box
What, an image of your install CD isn't good enough for you?
Almost every real MS OS CD I've seen in the past five years is bootable. The last one I saw that *wasn't* bootable was a Windows 95 disk--and I've seen 95 CDs that boot.
Modern "'doze" NT-based OSes have all bootable install CDs.
I hadn't heard that before, but even a few hundred years ago it wouldn't have made enough sense for me to buy into it.
That's exactly what happened, actually. The Federal Government took on the debts of the states, thus consolidating all foreign interest in its existance, and not the existance of the states themselves.
And right now, I can't see why we are so averse to trying to pay off our debts.
We're not. It's just that we let politicians handle the money, and we've got a little thing called a *war* that's going on, eating at our budget.
It simply makes things seem alright now while raping the future.
The government simply cannot delcare bankruptcy.
If the government would be displaced, its replacement government is highly unlikely to assume its predecessor's debts.
Thus, a defcit spending gives the debtors a stake in the continuing power of the government.
This was a tactic employed in the earliest days of the nation. I haven't the foggiest idea why we're still following it, considering we can take any two countries with a two-day notice.
* MS Messenger is running in the tray -- asking you sign up for Passport when you 1st log on
Well, yeah. That's MS pitching their IM. It's easy to get rid of.
* Windows Media Player is crippled so you can't make good MP3s (or on XP even download and use som other MP3 making software)
What? I'm on XP, and I get MP3 making software easilly.
* OEMs install dozens of bullshit programs, many of which launch on boot-up and leave their menus all over the screen
So get rid of them, or demand a "clean" install disk. Dell's good for this, and so are screwdriver shops.
* A bunch of crap litters the "Send to" right-click menu
That's a folder of shortcuts. Anthing you can drag a file to and open a progam with you can put in the "Send To" folder.
* MS Media player acts like some weird-ass app with no menu, no window, etc...
oro? Never seen that before...
It takes a LONG time to get things cleaned up and usable. You used to be able to just wipe the disk and install Windows from scratch, but more and more OEMs are not allowing thins, only giving you some crappy RESTORE disks...
An hour is a long time?
OEMs started giving crappy restore disks when CD-ROMs came out. Where have you been?
If you want a good, clean system, *don't buy from OEMS!*
Lol.
I think Pascal's wager is best limited to "should I believe?" Although a more complex variant is necessary...
Either:
- There are powerful creator(s) that have expressed how they desire us to act through religion
- There are powerful creators(s), but they have not expressed their desire for us to act through religion
- There are no powerful creator(s).
Our choice is either "believe", or "not believe." Finding out the exact state of what to believe can probably be accomplished by simple consultation with the established holy-men of the day, as all weight given by this gamble to religion is only in the "instruction book" value of religon.(1) has, obviously, infinite rewards and finite costs.
(2) has finite rewards and finite costs.
(3) has finite rewards and highly variable costs.
(If the powers-that-be wanted us to follow a set pattern, we can assume that they would communicate this to us.)
The costs of (1) and (2) are nothing more than the burdens of following a religion--which are much less today than they were in Pascal's day. They also have a guaranteed finite rewards, in the personal social and societal social benefits that religion grants.
(3) is a tricky one. Its rewards are nothing more than freedom from the costs of (1) and (2), while its costs range from simple loss of the finite benefits of (1) and (2) to possible loss of infinite reward and / or infinite punnishment.
The hole in this argument, of course, is the values of the cost of (1) and (2), waged against their finite benefits.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a prophet, to realize that if there's an all-powerful being that created the world and wants to be worshiped, there's only *one* of them.
The question of "is there a God" is a different one than "What's God like?" AFAIK, he's a bloodthirsty indian elder-spirit, who for some reason wants Christians to worship as a nice guy who hung on a cross.
I smoke unfiltered cigs.
These, moreso than anything else you mentioned, pose a direct harm to those around you when you smoke.
All the rest of them have Big Problems associated with them--problems best solved, oddly enough, by throwing money at them. Counseling for alcoholism. Support of the NRA & other gun-training programs. Regulatory oversight for cigarette manufacturers.
It's much better to legaize & regulate dangerous things that people are using than it is to try and outlaw them. Look at Prohibition.
As for the gov't--it might not have to watch me and you, but someone needs to watch the wackos. I'd rather have the gov't watching everyone than everyone watching each other.
The question of global warming is still out.
Really? We know two things.
1: The world is getting hotter.
2: We're spitting out pollutants that, among other things, can theoretically raise the tempature of the world.
Let's do the prudent thing and reduce them first; even if the world still gets hotter, at least it'll be a mite bit cleaner.
Anyway nothing lasts forever.
Depends on what you mean by "forever." Yes, eventually this solar system will be quite different than what we know.
But we have *no* way of knowing how long the stabilizing effects of mass media and popular culture (mostly by unification of the populace) will allow the current political structure to continue.
Even better, given the sheer inertia of the modern infrastrucutre--something that's wholly different that what Rome & Britain had--we might have a grand political upheval and, in day-to-day life, not even notice it.
Why? 'Cause we in the "developed" world like the poor to be poor.
You might. I don't.
But why should we assume that war is going to happen?
Because war *does* happen. Not necessarilly with us, but it does happen--and when we just leave warlike people along long enough, we eventually get bombed.
To being with, hold the rights of workers, consumers, and communties, and the care of the environment, above the interests of corporations.
Ah. A basic changing of the legal system. Very ambitious and long-term, but so were woman's lib and the abolition of slavery.
Sounds interesting.
Yay! Globalization! Completely free trade! It's good for everyone! :-)
:(
If it brings with it all the checks and rights that the first world enjoys--yes. 'course, that's a pretty big "if."
I think bruises would be the least of one's concerns in swordfighting...
Not really. The science of armor advanced to the point where it was quite equal to the sword, and an opponent has to work pretty darn hard to actually hurt someone wearing it.
I understand the SCA has quite a good safety record, considering they have guys in armor swinging swords at each other as a recreational activity.
Oh, and then there are *training swords* that don't have the sharp edges. And boffers. (toy "swords" made from some things easily obtainable at a hardware shop, that are far less effective than a fist when it comes to hurting someone.)
When was this?
After the American Revolution, when our very form of government inspired the French revolt against their monarchy and the increased pace of GB's conversion to a near-democracy.
After World War I, when our president outlined a fair and just plan that would have prevented WWII, not the vengence-ridden agreement that was imposed by those of greater healthy.
After World War II, when we helped turn Germany and Japan into the industrial powerhouses that they are today.
After the Cold War, when we embraced Russia as a friend and offered as much as we could to aid them--this, a country who's former government had been opposed to everything that we hold dear.
Yes, we have done some pretty nasty things as a country. But we've also done some good things, and there was a time when our view of ourselves was shaped by those, and not the cynical journalists that try and shape it today.
(And I am well aware of our time-honored tradition of injustice to "lesser peoples," like the Indians. Unless you have a time travel device, please don't try and bring that up in refutation.)
Oh? Roman and British Imperialism came to end, and so will the United States. Don't be so short-sighted to think that our empire is so righteous that it will last forever - it won't.
Rome failed because it did not have a viable peacetime way of expanding and living.
Britain failed because it decided it didn't want to be an empire, it wanted to be a country.
Also, what's with putting the word imperialism in quotes? Look it up then look in a mirror.
We're not, today, an Empire. If we were, Afkhanistan would be a US territory right now, and it isn't.
We're a "something else," with no legal control over our "colonies." We don't manage them for our benefit, but for theirs. (Look at Germany or Japan and tell me we managed them for our own selfish benefit.)
There *is* a distinct difference between what America is and what Rome or GB were. Rome died. GB became the British Commonwealth. We might just stick around in our current form forever--especially if we succeed in (somehow) bringing the third world up to the standard of the first.
'course, that's a pretty big "if." Not quite as big as "if we can kill everyone that gets in our way," though.
That's why there's a Green Party. We accept no corporate money.
:( Then again...
Refusing to take the means that get the big two elected is probably what keeps the Green Party from wining.
That keeps us focused on the things the US really needs: renewable energy,
Good.
taxes on "bads," not goods
Good idea for the short term, but I want my gov't getting money from things that we WANT to have, so they encourage those things. Maybe a flat tax on everything we want to encourage, and penalty taxes on "bads" whose extra ammounts are funneled into getting rid of said bad...
an end to overseas military bases,
Actually, as long as war is going to happen, I'd rather it be over there than over here. USA wouldn't be where we are if we weren't willing to go out and fight battles for other folks. Doing so makes the world a (very slightly) better place, and ensures our security against military threats by displaying our prowess regularly...
'course, solving the "security from wackos" would be nice too. But wackos, to date, have killed fewer Americans than hostile nations...
a government that sees people as citizens, not consumers (and increasingly, prisoners)
Well, that's intersting. What, pray tell, does the government have to do to change that?
Everyone has their own definition of "right"
Actually, it's a pretty clear cut legal term. The arguments come in on what rights are universal, optionable, and scarce.
I cannot see how my profits can in anyway affect your world's habitability. There are other things I could do to reduce that, but my making a profit is not one of them.
Simple. When you sacrafice the world's habitability to increase your profits, you are affecting my right to an inhabitable world.
Yes, there are other ways to make a buck--but the legal system seems to scream that your "right" to run your business for your own profit is superceded by the duties of environmental responsibilites. Or in other words, as long as your *don't* infringe on the rights of everyone else, you can make all the profit you want.
What is your reason for switching to Ogg?
twofold.
1: I'm a cheap SOB who doesn't want to shell out $ every time I want to make a PC play music. Being able to legally configure my PCs is an incentive to switch formats.
2: If they are smaller file sizes, that means I'll have easier backups--which is a good thing for me.
Gee, let's compare apples and dead fish why don't we. Are you arguing that it is your individual right that corporations should lose money?
Shesh. Buy a clue.
Everyone's got a whole bunch of "rights", and most of the legal system is focused on ordering those rights. To wit: My right of free speech is outweighted by your right to not be slandered. Your right to own a gun is outweighted by my right not to have a known felon carrying one.
Your right to maximize profits is outweighed (for the larger part) by my right to live in a habitable world.
The biggest fights are between private citizens--who want to protect their indivdual liberties and thus improve their quality of life--and corporations--who want to maximize their profits and thus improve their stockholder's quality of life.
Eventually, a balance will be achieved. This balance will then last until someone gets upset with it, and convinced enough other dissenting opinions to change the balance. This is the process we call progress, and it's how we got from a wild wilderness to the richest country on the planet in just a few centuries.
Technical superiority matters not a whit to the individuals, nor to the 'marketplace' that they comprise.
Technical superiority? No. Practical superiority? Yes. Observe:
Beta over VHS
"New format" against "format with a lot of tapes allready." Content providers failed to support Beta, so the market went to VHS, where people could actually watch movies.
LD over VHS
Oh, let me think--"flip the huge, easily breakable and expensive disk four times in a movie" against "stick in and hit play--or even record." Not even a contest for anyone except fanatics with money to burn.
Mac (and others) over MS OS
MS ships on a larger variety of configurations, and can be had for a lower cost point--and this has been the case ever since Windows came out.
Mac is *just now* getting to a price point where it can compete--and it's doing quite well for itself.
MD over CD
See Beta v. VHS.
In the case of MP3 v. Ogg, they're both conusmer-level formats. MP3s aren't sold in any meaningful fashion, and that means that Ogg just needs some hardware support to take over.
If Ogg files really are smaller for the same quality, expect a switch--when someone big (Sony / MS / Apple) holds it up and says "look, we can fit more on a drive the same cost!" and offers it, just as an option, it'll take off.
Until then, I'm off to find a good Ogg ripper so I can re-do my collection.
Which country has been invaded by the Christian church again?
:)
OH--you mean the ones that America's invaded. No, go ahead and have problems with my country--just don't forget that little "seperation of church and state" law that keeps the two apart.