I think we're both having a very clear inability to communicate. I say "you haven't pointed out a single example of two democracies going to war"... I don't see you refuting this... you think I'm not reading your messages.
Read my other message about Iran--I think you misunderstand the situation in Iran.
Re: South Africa. A society with upwards of 80% of the population disenfranchised is not a democracy.
Incidentally, thanks for responding for so long! I always enjoy a discussion with people with very different viewpoints from mine that doesn't degenerate into trash talk etc, thanks!
Read my other post to the message you just replied to--I'm by no means saying that democracies don't do shitty things. I'm not saying at all that democracies don't go to war with non-democratic nations. Particularly in South america e.g. America has done a LOT of shitty things (though as I said in my other message, it's of worth to note that in many of these cases it was cold war dynamics playing out--with leftist regimes with stated goals of seizingp roperty taking power with soviet backing). Like I said, I'm not saying democracies are magically better, and I'm not sayin g they don't do shitty things, and I'm not saying it's ok for democracies to fight with non-democracies. You can't find a quote of me saying any of those things. What I noted, at the beginning, and have resaid in every message is "Democracies very rarely go to war with each other"
And you are incorrect. You may not know this, but Israel controls the borders of the west bank and gaza strip VERY closely, allows the Palestinian territories no direct contact with any outside country, no shipping, and no airport. That is not the definition of free border. I would, incidentally, also dispute that they are at war.
And I don't think people should be killed if they don't buy goods--again, how can you think I'm saying this, I don't think you understand my point. I'm pointing out, actually Msr Bastiat pointed out, that open borders = peace. This is actually not at all related to democracy (except democracies TEND to be best at having open borders--this is by no means a rule). Simply stating that countries in which goods and people cross freely and unmolested don't tend to go to war with each other. That's it--if you'd be interested in reading some of Bastiat's work, it's really astonishingly interesting, and I'd be glad to give you some references.
Well, I disagree with the interpretations of a lot of these events, and what I said "when goods don't cross borders, armies will" stil stands. It's worth noting that most of these cases are when soviet leftist regimes that had stated goals of seizing property took over.
I honestly don't know enough about South america to answer most of those--my focus is Middle East/Central Asia.
Let's look at Iran though:
Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
if all of his points are as biased and incorrect as this, I would take everything on that page with a HEAVY grain of salt.
1. The CIA did not overthrow Mossadegh. The CIA ASSISTED a preexisting coup plot. There was a small amount of CIA money and a small amount of advisors. Secondly, Mossadegh was an elected Prime Minister (elected during the reign of the Shah) who started off with little power. The Majlis, parliament, of Iran was practically useless. Mossadegh forced the Shah into exile, and seized control of the military. Later, Mossadegh became very, very unpopular (I mentioned this all earlier). That's when the coup happened.
2) The US did not randomly make a shah. The Shah CAME BACK to Iran from exile when Mossadegh who had forced him to leave was gone. Yes, SAVAK was completely brutal and terrible. The shah was the Shah before Mossadegh, and after. If you want to see brutal, look at his father Reza Khan/Shah Pahlavi. Brutal from the beginning.
Another example of twisting of facts:
Afghanistan -- The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.
It makes it sound as if the US fucked up Afghanistan. Do you know how many civil wars there have been in Afghanistan in the 20th century alone? By my count, around 3-4, BEFORE the soviet invasion.
In short, the US HAS done a lot of shitty stuff. But, I would take this page with a heavy, HEAVY grano salis, as all of the events that I do know about are portrayed VERY inaccurately.
Like I said. They had an election which was monitored and approved of by the UN. That means they had a legally elected political a pparatus which is the definition of democracy.1
No, this is not the case. A non-country, without power, that has SOME elected officials, and only for the past 1 year is not a democracy. Not to mention, Arafat was de facto dictator. You CAN make an argument that the PLO is on the path to democracy. You CAN'T call the Palestinian authority of even 2 years ago remotely democratic. That's NOT the definition of democracy. Communist russia?
No Israel is at war with palestine. One democracy is at war with another democracy and has been for the last twenty years or so.
At war? I don't think so. And why 20 years? What happened in 1985
Iran WAS a democracy when the US engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and installed the shah. Again one democracy attacked another one.
No this is not true. Iran at any period under the shah was not REMOTELY a democracy. The Majlis was powerless in the role of the governmen. Yes, Mossadegh temporarily rose to power (and took control of the military--democratic?). Yes, the shah was temporarily exiled. However saying the US engineered the coup is not true. Yes, the US was there, and spent money, and had people on the ground. THe coup was executed by the Iranian military. At the point of the coup, Mossadegh was very unpopular--he had lost the support of the clerics, the masses, and the socialist parties (Tudeh and others). The coup, in short, was complicated. I'd be interested in discussing the finer points of this if you'd like.
Despite the complete irrelevence of your point I have pointed out two examples. Now answer me this.
No, I'm sorry, the PLO is not a democracy, and it's not a country. Iran under the shah was most definitely NOT a democracy, or even close. Not the mention the coup was NOT a war. The Coup was not solely orchestrated by the US either. Your points are irrelevant.
Democracies seem to be rather fond of going to war and killing people who don't agree with them. US goes to war once every five to ten years like clockwork. Israel is perfectly happy to keep a few million palestenians under brutal occupation. South Africa ran state sponsored apartheid for decades. England went to war in the falklands. Apparently there is nothing that special about democracies, they kill by bombs, they kill by blockades, they kill by engineering coups, they kill by supporting "freedom fighters", they keep minorities under brutal occupation etc.
I disagree with your assertion that the US goes to war every 5 to ten years. South Africa is CLEARLY not a democracy. England POSSESSES the Falklands and was protecting their territory.
Apparently all that's perfectly OK with you as long as they don't attack another democracy. Is that because you feel that only humans who live under a democracy are worth something and that it's perfectly OK to kill humans who don't live in democracies by the tens of thousands?
No, but I would say the number of civilians killed by/under dictatorships, fascisms, military governments, etc FAR exceeds those killed in conflicts between democracies and others.
And back to my point--I never said democracies don't go to war with non-democracies--in fact if you recall I stated early on "IF GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES WILL"... Democracies very, very rarely go to war with each other. I still don't think you've pointed out a single example.
Like I said. They had an election which was monitored and approved of by the UN. That means they had a legally elected political apparatus which is the definition of democracy.
No, this is not the case. A non-country, without power, that has SOME elected officials, and only for the past 1 year is not a democracy. Not to mention, Arafat was de facto dictator. You CAN make an argument that the PLO is on the path to democracy. You CAN'T call the Palestinian authority of even 2 years ago remotely democratic. That's NOT the definition of democracy. Communist russia?
No Israel is at war with palestine. One democracy is at war with another democracy and has been for the last twenty years or so.
At war? I don't think so. And why 20 years? What happened in 1985
Iran WAS a democracy when the US engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and installed the shah. Again one democracy attacked another one.
No this is not true. Iran at any period under the shah was not REMOTELY a democracy. The Majlis was powerless in the role of the governmen. Yes, Mossadegh temporarily rose to power (and took control of the military--democratic?). Yes, the shah was temporarily exiled. However saying the US engineered the coup is not true. Yes, the US was there, and spent money, and had people on the ground. THe coup was executed by the Iranian military. At the point of the coup, Mossadegh was very unpopular--he had lost the support of the clerics, the masses, and the socialist parties (Tudeh and others). The coup, in short, was complicated. I'd be interested in discussing the finer points of this if you'd like.
Despite the complete irrelevence of your point I have pointed out two examples. Now answer me this.
No, I'm sorry, the PLO is not a democracy, and it's not a country. Iran under the shah was most definitely NOT a democracy, or even close. Not the mention the coup was NOT a war. The Coup was not solely orchestrated by the US either. Your points are irrelevant.
Democracies seem to be rather fond of going to war and killing people who don't agree with them. US goes to war once every five to ten years like clockwork. Israel is perfectly happy to keep a few million palestenians under brutal occupation. South Africa ran state sponsored apartheid for decades. England went to war in the falklands. Apparently there is nothing that special about democracies, they kill by bombs, they kill by blockades, they kill by engineering coups, they kill by supporting "freedom fighters", they keep minorities under brutal occupation etc.
I disagree with your assertion that the US goes to war every 5 to ten years. South Africa is CLEARLY not a democracy. England POSSESSES the Falklands and was protecting their territory.
Apparently all that's perfectly OK with you as long as they don't attack another democracy. Is that because you feel that only humans who live under a democracy are worth something and that it's perfectly OK to kill humans who don't live in democracies by the tens of thousands?
No, but I would say the number of civilians killed by/under dictatorships, fascisms, military governments, etc FAR exceeds those killed in conflicts between democracies and others.
And back to my point--I never said democracies don't go to war with non-democracies--in fact if you recall I stated early on "IF GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES WILL"... Democracies very, very rarely go to war with each other. I still don't think you've pointed out a single example.
Like I said, Palestine isn't there yet. There HAVE been some reforms. Arafat was for all intents and purposes a dictator, and those in power are his groomed successors. Yes, there have been some moves towards a good democracy, but you can't call Palestine a vibrant democracy yet. That's completely stretching the terms.
Also, I thought this too obvious to mention earlier--the US isn't at war with the Palestinian authority. In fact they receive a huge amount of aid from us. So I'm not sure what your point is?
Iran likewise is no democracy. It has the FORM of a democracy, and is making strides, but until the Council of Guardians doesn't eliminate 90%+ of the candidates before elections occurs, Iran cannot be called a democracy. This has been the situation since 1978.
Panama? If you recall, the US invaded because the Noriega regime refused to leave power and annulled internationally certified election results. Again, you can't call this a democracy. Noriega is currently in jail right now for being a drug runner!
So I challenge you yet again--find an example of two democracies going to war. I'm not saying you can't find a single example, but it's hard, and so far you haven't touched on one.
wow, the Palestinian Authority is in no ways a democracy! yikes.. it may have been somewhat reformed in the last year or two, but nowhere near.
And as to your other question, why, it was somewhat rhetorical. When WAS the last time you saw two democracies go to war? Maybe there is something inherent in democracies that makes them not go to war with each other.
And the question was also relating back to my earlier quote--"when goods don't cross borders, armies will." In case you didn't know, this is a quote by a famous 19th century Frenchman--Frederic Bastiat. Somewhat ironically, France was a bastion of early classic liberal thought.
Though my personal corporate America stuff abroad experience was getting a chicken tikka masala pizza at a Pizza Hut (I was tempted to go McDonalds there, and get a LambBurger [beef being a big no-no!] but I couldn't bring myself to do it!) in New Delhi (where it was classy!)
But then again, as it has been said--"When goods don't cross borders, armies will."
Capitalism thrives when borders are open. Despite it being said repeatedly, war is NOT good for business. Or rather, war may be good for business, but not nearly as good as peace.
And no system of government has been as effective as democracies in maintaining peace. When was the last time any two democracies you know went to war?
Ok, barring the fact that my original post was about desktops, I stil l think you're missing the point. Nothing you've mentioned couldn't be changed by more fans, or ram, or a disk, or anything else like that...or a different model of the same chip.
My point was, unless you physically look at a chip, or in this case physically come into contact with it (which again is obvious--Jobs talked about this as a reason for switching), you couldn't tell the difference. That's it. I wasn't trying to claim that all chips have exactly the same speed and thermal output, merely, you can't tell the chip ARCHITECTURE from any of these things--the difference in speed, responsiveness, heat, etc, varies as much if not more between processor models in the same line as they do between architectures.
You'll get no arguments from me that the PowerPC is a theoretically nicer architecture. But like I said, this doesn't count for anything as part of the user experience (except for hardware geeks and the like).
Tiger kernel is 32-bit bit. Yes, it can do many 64-bit things. However, Kernel and much of the OS--as you mentioned, Aqua, API's, etc, are 32-bit. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but that's how it is.
this is one of the reasons apple is going to IA32 and not straight to 64 bit. I'm guessing Leopard will come out along with EMT64 Dualcore Banias based CPU's in 2007.
Ever used a Shuttle mini? I have a number in service at work with 2.xghz P4's and they run almost completely silent. By your definition, I must be using an AMD.
But I have to say that you're both arguing points that only hold in certain cases (and would be equally true for different models of Intel processors as it would be for switching brands) and ultimately missing the point I made with my original reply that was that CPU makes very little difference to USER EXPERIENCE.
Besides which, have you heard the noise the average powermac g4 tower makes?
long story short, my ORIGINAL reply was to someone who said he wanted a g5 64 bit chip because of the different experience from a p4, which I still think is stupid.
Ok sure, you can tell that the speed is different, and you can tell, if you had the proper equipment, that it uses a different amount of electricity. Then again these factors could come from ram, hdd, or any other component.
The CPU doesn't change your EXPERIENCE at all except in terms of speed. It's not like one CPU can do something another CPU can't.
g5 isn't 64 bit the way AMD64 / Intel EMT64 is. OSX isn't a 64 bit operating system--parts of it are, but if you want a 64-bit os, run linux, freebsd, windows xp64, etc.
secondly, it's been said that shipping systems will not use p4's. Pentium D is the rumor.
Honestly, why do you care about the hardware? Why aren't you caring about the performance, etc? Can you tell a difference between a PC using an intel chip or an amd? no.
I think you'll also find that censorship occurs in all countries, and that much of it is ludicrous. (Look at the list of books banned in various parts of the US - "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe"???)
a--Farmer for whatever reason decides to not pay wages that people want (instead, magnaminously picking an arbitrarily higher wage).
What fucking color is the sky in your neoliberal, libertarian, AynRand-masturbatory fantasy world? In REAL LIFE, it would go down like this: the pickers say FUCK YOU, Old MacDonald, give me a raise or we walk.
So what non-"REAL LIFE" do we life in? A magical candy land where people don't conform to your specific vision of how they should act? And incidentally, your usage of the word neo-liberal is completely backwards--it's CLASSICAL liberal.
Correct, OR he can eat the wage increase by paying his investors/shareholders less money, because as we all know, the VAST majority of produce comes from corporate agriculture. Either that, or the farmer is a millionaire (quite common), and so he will buy a new car next year instead of this year.
Yes this is true, he COULD eat more of the costs. How much more, I'd have to see numbers on. You do realize there are heavy farming subsidies throughout the country? Well anyway, my point stands--when profits are reduced, so are funding, so is the ability to expand, so are your hated corporate profits, leaving other farmers looking better to investors, etc.
WRONG! The pickers for the OTHER farmer/mega-corp-agro ALSO wanted a raise. And if they did not, then they will quit their current jobs, and go work for the higher wage. ALL The other farmers will have to raise their wages and price,too. It's called a race to the top, bright eyes. And this time, instead of putting the price pressure on the earners to eat a wage decrease, the price pressure is put on the owners to eat the wage increase.
Ok, so why doesn't this happen? Simple, because there is a huge number of people who WILL work for what you call the "lower wages." I'm not even talking about "illegals." Just because people are immigrants doesn't mean they are illegals. And just because they will (gladly, I might add) work for a wage someone such as yourself wouldn't deign to, doesn't make them bad people.
BULLSHIT. As long as people need to eat, there will be a demand for food. And where there is a demand, there will be a supply. See, when you read the wall st journal, Ayn Rand, listen to Limbaugh, that turns your brain to mush, as any reasonably intelligent onlooker can see. Now wipe your blood off of your nose, and go do some real reading.
I don't understand your point here, other than a lot of ad hominems. No one farmer is going to substantially alter the world food supply. You may not realize it per se, but we're part of a vast economy of farmers across the states, across the nation, across north america, across the hemisphere, and across the globe. One farmer in this scene means very little. If he can't compete, nobody cares, there are millions of other farmers doing the same thing he's doing.
I should also note that in your ideal world, you make food goods more expensive for EVERYONE, thus in large part eliminating any advantage the farm workers would get from an increased wage. You've just raised food costs for the poor...that doesn't seem very fair.
I am about to respond to Cryofan, so you can read that if you're interested:)
but in the meanwhile, I am, as you can tell from my post, very libertarian leaning, and as such I am against black markets and for freedom in all things--including freedom of movement of peoples.
It's completely not fair to say that no one but illegals will work for minimum wage or what not, that's certainly not true in my home state. People WILL work for minimum wage--yes, they may be poor immigrants, but there are no shortage of those, even legal ones.
Farmer for whatever reason decides to not pay wages that people want (instead, magnaminously picking an arbitrarily higher wage).
Farmer has higher costs. Farmer has to raise prices. Farmer's higher prices can't compete. Farmer doesn't sell product. Farmer goes out of business. Now there are no jobs.
Yes, you're actually right, that IS why the department of homeland security recommend that you use encryption, and such a lucid and sane argument will probably be used against YOU one day.
What's your point? That encryption provides an excellent opportunity for criminals to cloak their actions? Guess what, it's been going on for years. I fear for the society in which anything is legal so long as you hide all the evidence...is that REALLY what you're advocating? I'd really appreciate you explaining your point, since you did take the time to reply again.
What argument are you attempting to make. Are you saying that if you're a child pornographer that you should be allowed to continue your actions just so long as you encrypt the result so it's private?
Because that's what it sounds like you're saying, and I don't think that makes any sense.
Please. Stop. The. Paranoia! You're not being tracked. You can encrypt whatever you want. You're NOT allowed to break the law and get away with it just because whatever you did was encrypted.
Slashdot Mirror
Read my other message about Iran--I think you misunderstand the situation in Iran.
Re: South Africa. A society with upwards of 80% of the population disenfranchised is not a democracy.
Incidentally, thanks for responding for so long! I always enjoy a discussion with people with very different viewpoints from mine that doesn't degenerate into trash talk etc, thanks!
Read my other post to the message you just replied to--I'm by no means saying that democracies don't do shitty things. I'm not saying at all that democracies don't go to war with non-democratic nations. Particularly in South america e.g. America has done a LOT of shitty things (though as I said in my other message, it's of worth to note that in many of these cases it was cold war dynamics playing out--with leftist regimes with stated goals of seizingp roperty taking power with soviet backing). Like I said, I'm not saying democracies are magically better, and I'm not sayin g they don't do shitty things, and I'm not saying it's ok for democracies to fight with non-democracies. You can't find a quote of me saying any of those things. What I noted, at the beginning, and have resaid in every message is "Democracies very rarely go to war with each other"
And you are incorrect. You may not know this, but Israel controls the borders of the west bank and gaza strip VERY closely, allows the Palestinian territories no direct contact with any outside country, no shipping, and no airport. That is not the definition of free border. I would, incidentally, also dispute that they are at war.
And I don't think people should be killed if they don't buy goods--again, how can you think I'm saying this, I don't think you understand my point. I'm pointing out, actually Msr Bastiat pointed out, that open borders = peace. This is actually not at all related to democracy (except democracies TEND to be best at having open borders--this is by no means a rule). Simply stating that countries in which goods and people cross freely and unmolested don't tend to go to war with each other. That's it--if you'd be interested in reading some of Bastiat's work, it's really astonishingly interesting, and I'd be glad to give you some references.
I honestly don't know enough about South america to answer most of those--my focus is Middle East/Central Asia.
Let's look at Iran though:
Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.
if all of his points are as biased and incorrect as this, I would take everything on that page with a HEAVY grain of salt.
1. The CIA did not overthrow Mossadegh. The CIA ASSISTED a preexisting coup plot. There was a small amount of CIA money and a small amount of advisors. Secondly, Mossadegh was an elected Prime Minister (elected during the reign of the Shah) who started off with little power. The Majlis, parliament, of Iran was practically useless. Mossadegh forced the Shah into exile, and seized control of the military. Later, Mossadegh became very, very unpopular (I mentioned this all earlier). That's when the coup happened.
2) The US did not randomly make a shah. The Shah CAME BACK to Iran from exile when Mossadegh who had forced him to leave was gone. Yes, SAVAK was completely brutal and terrible. The shah was the Shah before Mossadegh, and after. If you want to see brutal, look at his father Reza Khan/Shah Pahlavi. Brutal from the beginning.
Another example of twisting of facts:
Afghanistan -- The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.
It makes it sound as if the US fucked up Afghanistan. Do you know how many civil wars there have been in Afghanistan in the 20th century alone? By my count, around 3-4, BEFORE the soviet invasion.
In short, the US HAS done a lot of shitty stuff. But, I would take this page with a heavy, HEAVY grano salis, as all of the events that I do know about are portrayed VERY inaccurately.
Like I said. They had an election which was monitored and approved of by the UN. That means they had a legally elected political a pparatus which is the definition of democracy.1
No, this is not the case. A non-country, without power, that has SOME elected officials, and only for the past 1 year is not a democracy. Not to mention, Arafat was de facto dictator. You CAN make an argument that the PLO is on the path to democracy. You CAN'T call the Palestinian authority of even 2 years ago remotely democratic. That's NOT the definition of democracy. Communist russia?
No Israel is at war with palestine. One democracy is at war with another democracy and has been for the last twenty years or so.
At war? I don't think so. And why 20 years? What happened in 1985
Iran WAS a democracy when the US engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and installed the shah. Again one democracy attacked another one.
No this is not true. Iran at any period under the shah was not REMOTELY a democracy. The Majlis was powerless in the role of the governmen. Yes, Mossadegh temporarily rose to power (and took control of the military--democratic?). Yes, the shah was temporarily exiled. However saying the US engineered the coup is not true. Yes, the US was there, and spent money, and had people on the ground. THe coup was executed by the Iranian military. At the point of the coup, Mossadegh was very unpopular--he had lost the support of the clerics, the masses, and the socialist parties (Tudeh and others). The coup, in short, was complicated. I'd be interested in discussing the finer points of this if you'd like.
Despite the complete irrelevence of your point I have pointed out two examples. Now answer me this.
No, I'm sorry, the PLO is not a democracy, and it's not a country. Iran under the shah was most definitely NOT a democracy, or even close. Not the mention the coup was NOT a war. The Coup was not solely orchestrated by the US either. Your points are irrelevant.
Democracies seem to be rather fond of going to war and killing people who don't agree with them. US goes to war once every five to ten years like clockwork. Israel is perfectly happy to keep a few million palestenians under brutal occupation. South Africa ran state sponsored apartheid for decades. England went to war in the falklands. Apparently there is nothing that special about democracies, they kill by bombs, they kill by blockades, they kill by engineering coups, they kill by supporting "freedom fighters", they keep minorities under brutal occupation etc.
I disagree with your assertion that the US goes to war every 5 to ten years. South Africa is CLEARLY not a democracy. England POSSESSES the Falklands and was protecting their territory.
Apparently all that's perfectly OK with you as long as they don't attack another democracy. Is that because you feel that only humans who live under a democracy are worth something and that it's perfectly OK to kill humans who don't live in democracies by the tens of thousands?
No, but I would say the number of civilians killed by/under dictatorships, fascisms, military governments, etc FAR exceeds those killed in conflicts between democracies and others.
And back to my point--I never said democracies don't go to war with non-democracies--in fact if you recall I stated early on "IF GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES WILL" ... Democracies very, very rarely go to war with each other. I still don't think you've pointed out a single example.
Like I said. They had an election which was monitored and approved of by the UN. That means they had a legally elected political apparatus which is the definition of democracy.
No, this is not the case. A non-country, without power, that has SOME elected officials, and only for the past 1 year is not a democracy. Not to mention, Arafat was de facto dictator. You CAN make an argument that the PLO is on the path to democracy. You CAN'T call the Palestinian authority of even 2 years ago remotely democratic. That's NOT the definition of democracy. Communist russia?
No Israel is at war with palestine. One democracy is at war with another democracy and has been for the last twenty years or so.
At war? I don't think so. And why 20 years? What happened in 1985
Iran WAS a democracy when the US engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and installed the shah. Again one democracy attacked another one.
No this is not true. Iran at any period under the shah was not REMOTELY a democracy. The Majlis was powerless in the role of the governmen. Yes, Mossadegh temporarily rose to power (and took control of the military--democratic?). Yes, the shah was temporarily exiled. However saying the US engineered the coup is not true. Yes, the US was there, and spent money, and had people on the ground. THe coup was executed by the Iranian military. At the point of the coup, Mossadegh was very unpopular--he had lost the support of the clerics, the masses, and the socialist parties (Tudeh and others). The coup, in short, was complicated. I'd be interested in discussing the finer points of this if you'd like.
Despite the complete irrelevence of your point I have pointed out two examples. Now answer me this.
No, I'm sorry, the PLO is not a democracy, and it's not a country. Iran under the shah was most definitely NOT a democracy, or even close. Not the mention the coup was NOT a war. The Coup was not solely orchestrated by the US either. Your points are irrelevant.
Democracies seem to be rather fond of going to war and killing people who don't agree with them. US goes to war once every five to ten years like clockwork. Israel is perfectly happy to keep a few million palestenians under brutal occupation. South Africa ran state sponsored apartheid for decades. England went to war in the falklands. Apparently there is nothing that special about democracies, they kill by bombs, they kill by blockades, they kill by engineering coups, they kill by supporting "freedom fighters", they keep minorities under brutal occupation etc.
I disagree with your assertion that the US goes to war every 5 to ten years. South Africa is CLEARLY not a democracy. England POSSESSES the Falklands and was protecting their territory.
Apparently all that's perfectly OK with you as long as they don't attack another democracy. Is that because you feel that only humans who live under a democracy are worth something and that it's perfectly OK to kill humans who don't live in democracies by the tens of thousands?
No, but I would say the number of civilians killed by/under dictatorships, fascisms, military governments, etc FAR exceeds those killed in conflicts between democracies and others.
And back to my point--I never said democracies don't go to war with non-democracies--in fact if you recall I stated early on "IF GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES WILL" ... Democracies very, very rarely go to war with each other. I still don't think you've pointed out a single example.
Like I said, Palestine isn't there yet. There HAVE been some reforms. Arafat was for all intents and purposes a dictator, and those in power are his groomed successors. Yes, there have been some moves towards a good democracy, but you can't call Palestine a vibrant democracy yet. That's completely stretching the terms.
Also, I thought this too obvious to mention earlier--the US isn't at war with the Palestinian authority. In fact they receive a huge amount of aid from us. So I'm not sure what your point is?
Iran likewise is no democracy. It has the FORM of a democracy, and is making strides, but until the Council of Guardians doesn't eliminate 90%+ of the candidates before elections occurs, Iran cannot be called a democracy. This has been the situation since 1978.
Panama? If you recall, the US invaded because the Noriega regime refused to leave power and annulled internationally certified election results. Again, you can't call this a democracy. Noriega is currently in jail right now for being a drug runner!
So I challenge you yet again--find an example of two democracies going to war. I'm not saying you can't find a single example, but it's hard, and so far you haven't touched on one.
wow, the Palestinian Authority is in no ways a democracy! yikes.. it may have been somewhat reformed in the last year or two, but nowhere near.
And as to your other question, why, it was somewhat rhetorical. When WAS the last time you saw two democracies go to war? Maybe there is something inherent in democracies that makes them not go to war with each other.
And the question was also relating back to my earlier quote--"when goods don't cross borders, armies will." In case you didn't know, this is a quote by a famous 19th century Frenchman--Frederic Bastiat. Somewhat ironically, France was a bastion of early classic liberal thought.
And it's a good observation!
Indeed! As seen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3737162.st m
Though my personal corporate America stuff abroad experience was getting a chicken tikka masala pizza at a Pizza Hut (I was tempted to go McDonalds there, and get a LambBurger [beef being a big no-no!] but I couldn't bring myself to do it!) in New Delhi (where it was classy!)
Would love to go to China some day!
But then again, as it has been said--"When goods don't cross borders, armies will."
Capitalism thrives when borders are open. Despite it being said repeatedly, war is NOT good for business. Or rather, war may be good for business, but not nearly as good as peace.
And no system of government has been as effective as democracies in maintaining peace. When was the last time any two democracies you know went to war?
Ok, barring the fact that my original post was about desktops, I stil l think you're missing the point. Nothing you've mentioned couldn't be changed by more fans, or ram, or a disk, or anything else like that...or a different model of the same chip.
My point was, unless you physically look at a chip, or in this case physically come into contact with it (which again is obvious--Jobs talked about this as a reason for switching), you couldn't tell the difference. That's it. I wasn't trying to claim that all chips have exactly the same speed and thermal output, merely, you can't tell the chip ARCHITECTURE from any of these things--the difference in speed, responsiveness, heat, etc, varies as much if not more between processor models in the same line as they do between architectures.
You'll get no arguments from me that the PowerPC is a theoretically nicer architecture. But like I said, this doesn't count for anything as part of the user experience (except for hardware geeks and the like).
Tiger kernel is 32-bit bit. Yes, it can do many 64-bit things. However, Kernel and much of the OS--as you mentioned, Aqua, API's, etc, are 32-bit. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but that's how it is.
this is one of the reasons apple is going to IA32 and not straight to 64 bit. I'm guessing Leopard will come out along with EMT64 Dualcore Banias based CPU's in 2007.
Ok, we're talking apples and oranges now though. My pb g4 gets pretty smoking, my gf's petium m doesn't. ~shrug~
For what it's worth, my g4 1.5ghz pb gets signifigantly hotter than my g4's pentium m laptop.
Also, as I said earlier--mac's aren't going to be P4--I believe this has been confirmed. Speculation has it that they will PEntium D's.
Well, this is downright false.
Ever used a Shuttle mini? I have a number in service at work with 2.xghz P4's and they run almost completely silent. By your definition, I must be using an AMD.
But I have to say that you're both arguing points that only hold in certain cases (and would be equally true for different models of Intel processors as it would be for switching brands) and ultimately missing the point I made with my original reply that was that CPU makes very little difference to USER EXPERIENCE.
Besides which, have you heard the noise the average powermac g4 tower makes?
long story short, my ORIGINAL reply was to someone who said he wanted a g5 64 bit chip because of the different experience from a p4, which I still think is stupid.
Ok sure, you can tell that the speed is different, and you can tell, if you had the proper equipment, that it uses a different amount of electricity. Then again these factors could come from ram, hdd, or any other component.
The CPU doesn't change your EXPERIENCE at all except in terms of speed. It's not like one CPU can do something another CPU can't.
g5 isn't 64 bit the way AMD64 / Intel EMT64 is. OSX isn't a 64 bit operating system--parts of it are, but if you want a 64-bit os, run linux, freebsd, windows xp64, etc.
secondly, it's been said that shipping systems will not use p4's. Pentium D is the rumor.
Honestly, why do you care about the hardware? Why aren't you caring about the performance, etc? Can you tell a difference between a PC using an intel chip or an amd? no.
I think you'll also find that censorship occurs in all countries, and that much of it is ludicrous. (Look at the list of books banned in various parts of the US - "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe"???)
Banned where?
I'm sorry, but this actually isn't true.
o nceptual/universauniversal_binary.pd
check:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/C
It says quite clearly that Intel OSX will not have Open Firmware.
We'll see the reality I guess.
Well ok, I'll agree with that then :)
;)
but, with the stipulation that the laws are stupid
a--Farmer for whatever reason decides to not pay wages that people want (instead, magnaminously picking an arbitrarily higher wage).
What fucking color is the sky in your neoliberal, libertarian, AynRand-masturbatory fantasy world? In REAL LIFE, it would go down like this: the pickers say FUCK YOU, Old MacDonald, give me a raise or we walk.
So what non-"REAL LIFE" do we life in? A magical candy land where people don't conform to your specific vision of how they should act? And incidentally, your usage of the word neo-liberal is completely backwards--it's CLASSICAL liberal.
Correct, OR he can eat the wage increase by paying his investors/shareholders less money, because as we all know, the VAST majority of produce comes from corporate agriculture. Either that, or the farmer is a millionaire (quite common), and so he will buy a new car next year instead of this year.
Yes this is true, he COULD eat more of the costs. How much more, I'd have to see numbers on. You do realize there are heavy farming subsidies throughout the country? Well anyway, my point stands--when profits are reduced, so are funding, so is the ability to expand, so are your hated corporate profits, leaving other farmers looking better to investors, etc.
WRONG! The pickers for the OTHER farmer/mega-corp-agro ALSO wanted a raise. And if they did not, then they will quit their current jobs, and go work for the higher wage. ALL The other farmers will have to raise their wages and price,too. It's called a race to the top, bright eyes. And this time, instead of putting the price pressure on the earners to eat a wage decrease, the price pressure is put on the owners to eat the wage increase.
Ok, so why doesn't this happen? Simple, because there is a huge number of people who WILL work for what you call the "lower wages." I'm not even talking about "illegals." Just because people are immigrants doesn't mean they are illegals. And just because they will (gladly, I might add) work for a wage someone such as yourself wouldn't deign to, doesn't make them bad people.
BULLSHIT. As long as people need to eat, there will be a demand for food. And where there is a demand, there will be a supply. See, when you read the wall st journal, Ayn Rand, listen to Limbaugh, that turns your brain to mush, as any reasonably intelligent onlooker can see. Now wipe your blood off of your nose, and go do some real reading.
I don't understand your point here, other than a lot of ad hominems. No one farmer is going to substantially alter the world food supply. You may not realize it per se, but we're part of a vast economy of farmers across the states, across the nation, across north america, across the hemisphere, and across the globe. One farmer in this scene means very little. If he can't compete, nobody cares, there are millions of other farmers doing the same thing he's doing.
I should also note that in your ideal world, you make food goods more expensive for EVERYONE, thus in large part eliminating any advantage the farm workers would get from an increased wage. You've just raised food costs for the poor...that doesn't seem very fair.
I am about to respond to Cryofan, so you can read that if you're interested :)
but in the meanwhile, I am, as you can tell from my post, very libertarian leaning, and as such I am against black markets and for freedom in all things--including freedom of movement of peoples.
It's completely not fair to say that no one but illegals will work for minimum wage or what not, that's certainly not true in my home state. People WILL work for minimum wage--yes, they may be poor immigrants, but there are no shortage of those, even legal ones.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Farmer for whatever reason decides to not pay wages that people want (instead, magnaminously picking an arbitrarily higher wage).
Farmer has higher costs. Farmer has to raise prices. Farmer's higher prices can't compete. Farmer doesn't sell product. Farmer goes out of business. Now there are no jobs.
a,b,c,d....
Yes, you're actually right, that IS why the department of homeland security recommend that you use encryption, and such a lucid and sane argument will probably be used against YOU one day.
Good thing you're on to them...
What's your point? That encryption provides an excellent opportunity for criminals to cloak their actions? Guess what, it's been going on for years. I fear for the society in which anything is legal so long as you hide all the evidence...is that REALLY what you're advocating? I'd really appreciate you explaining your point, since you did take the time to reply again.
Incorrect! He DID use the encryption software as part of his crimes.
What argument are you attempting to make. Are you saying that if you're a child pornographer that you should be allowed to continue your actions just so long as you encrypt the result so it's private?
Because that's what it sounds like you're saying, and I don't think that makes any sense.
Please. Stop. The. Paranoia! You're not being tracked. You can encrypt whatever you want. You're NOT allowed to break the law and get away with it just because whatever you did was encrypted.
Bah. People who don't think do, indeed, suck.