You might be surprised to notice that the science of aerodynamics has advanced quite a bit in the last 150 years. It's now quite a bit more reliable than, say, psychology.
Bin Laden blames us for the situation in Israel. That's clear from his rhetoric. Israel also exists only because the US supplies them with MASSIVE military aid. You need look no farther than their top-of-the-line F-15 air superiority fighters to see that the US is giving Israel access to the best gear available.
I don't care if you want to talk about "pacifist nations" or "pacifist people" or however you want to slice it. You have not yet illustrated how pacifism is anything other than cowardice (IE, wanting somebody else to do something unpleasant that you do not want to do).
Quakers don't want to defend themselves or their way of life. Fine. How many Quakers are there? Not many. How many Quakers do you think there would be if they lived in a region with scarce resources and another people who were not pacifist? Let me tell you: There would be zero. They might occupy the moral high ground, but they would be dead.
Switzerland is not a nation of pacifists. It's a nation of skilled war-makers who defend their decision to be neutral jealously. I have a great deal of respect for that. I have no respect for an individual (or group) who wants somebody else to do their fighting because they think they're above it.
You're being intentionally dense. Let me restate my challenge, and I'll try to use small words.
Cite a historical example of a successful society that adhered (or adheres) to pacifist principles. In order to be considered successful, that society must exist for more than one generation (that is, longer than the life of its founder).
My argument is that pacifism is only an excuse to not get one's hands dirty. Force is NECESSARY for any society that wants to defend itself and its way of life. To say that one is above fighting is to say that one would rather have somebody else do their fighting for them.
The reason that there exist no pacifist nations is because any pacifist nation would be destroyed in very short order.
I posted it because I thought it was funny...and because it had a tasty grain of truth in the center.
I'm sure that the Chief wasn't really advocating assaulting protestors. I also know that it's not an allegory for the US/Afghanistan situation. It's a thought experiment that demonstrates why pacifism will not work in a world where there exist aggressive societies.
And I'm having a GREAT time watching the uproar! Gosh, I didn't think of it as a troll, but now it sure looks like one...
Ah, so we should trade with Iran, even when they do things that we don't like?
Opposing economic sanctions is just like saying I should trade lunches with a bully, just because he wants my lunch. If Iran/Iraq/whoever wants to do business with the Western world, they might want to tone down their anti-Western rhetoric. Why should I trade with somebody who hates me?
Saudi Arabia is most emphatically NOT occupied. The Saudi government BEGGED the US to station troops on the peninsula to protect them from their imperialistic neighbors. If you think differently, that's OK. You're just wrong.
When did we torture Iraqis?
Timothy McVeigh is the product of Timothy McVeigh. People have free will. For every example of a tortured soul trained by the military, I can provide you with ten examples of great human beings made greater by the discipline and training of military service.
If you want to talk about whether Israel has the right to exist or not, take it up with the UN.
When exactly did we (America) beat people up in the middle east? Was it when we supplied and trained the Afghan counter-insurgents, or was it when we tried to keep the Shah of Iran's moderate government in power?
Oh, I forgot. It was when we tried to enforce the UN's charter of Israel. Silly me. Bomb away, Middle Easterners, we are obviously the Great Satan.
America gets an awful rep as an imperialistic power, but it's never EVER been justified. If we were an imperialistic nation, we would have occupied Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and not worried about what the price of oil was going to be fixed at. Yes, we exercise our foreign policy on the soil of other countries. Yes, we act diplomatically, economically, and militarily to secure our interests abroad. Yes, we make foreign policy mistakes. Name a powerful country that does not.
The air strikes are aimed at the Taliban's ability to make war (which is REALLY what terrorism is). Without the funds and the training camps, they are powerless on the world stage.
I don't really want the Taliban to be utterly destroyed. That's what makes them different from me. They think that my very ability to live and breathe is an affront to God. I think that they are misguided and dangerous, and should be deprived of the ability to kill me.
Since I live in a big, powerful country, that means I am in a better position to get what I want than they are. Good thing what I want is not to destroy their way of life (although I think it's morally repugnant).
(I'm using the collective I, knowing full well that this individual's power to destroy others is very very limited. The power I exercise by proxy by my support of the US Military, on the other hand, is pretty massive.)
You don't get it. Pacifists argue that we should not hit the terrorists back. People who live in the real world understand that sometimes, force MUST be met with force.
In order to justify the pacifist philosophy, cite a historical example of a pacifist society that lasted more than one generation while in contact with other, non-pacifist societies.
OK, platitudes aside, what should be done? It's great to sit around armchair quarterbacking the biggest foreign policy event of the new millenium, but the people doing it have very little of substance to add to the discussion.
You're right...America should NOT go off half-cocked. The response should be carefully measured and considered. That's what's been going on in the last month. The Taliban have sown the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind.
As far as the article you linked to, all it illustrates is that America assisted these governments (yes, out of America's self interest, but protected them nonetheless) from the immediate threat of Russian occupation. How did this get us nominated for Great Satan status, exactly?
Oh yeah, we created Israel. Almost forgot about that.
I don't normally propagate these Internet memes, but this one is awfully appropriate.
Credit for this goes to a retired Navy Chief
What to do if you happen by a university peace rally in order to teach
naive college students who have not experienced war in their lifetime
why force is sometimes needed :
1) Approach naive young student chanting about "peace" and saying
there should be, "no retaliation."
2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if they think military force is
appropriate in response to attack killing over 6,000 people.
3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would
just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."
5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a
mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would,
"be awful and he should not cause more violence."
7) Wait until he agrees with you that since he has pledged not to
commit additional violence it would not be right for him to strike you
back.
8) Punch him in the face again, harder this time.
9) Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is
necessary to punch back.
Carry an accelerometer, and compare actual acceleration to predicted acceleration. You'd have to do some signal processing magic to ignore the buffeting, but I bet it'd be doable.
Inertial navigation's not as accurate as GPS, but it'll do in a pinch.
Please don't use the word "engineering" with respect to whatever it is the recording companies do with Ms. Spears and her ilk. Engineering takes intellect and talent. Whatever it is that they do just takes money, and a gullible audience.
Umm, not to put too fine a point on it, but/. is edited by Americans. Most of the posters are American. If the American bias offends you, that's fine. Nobody's stopping you from making your own site. Hell, they're even giving away the code to do so!
I'm not saying "If you don't like it, get out!" I'm saying "If you don't like it, what's to stop you from doing it differently?"
Not always true. The lift vector's magnitude also depends on angle of attack. So, when flying upside-down (with the less-than-optimal curvature of the wing) requires trimming out at a higher angle of attack than would be used in normal flight.
Some barnstormers might use symmetrical wings, but not all of them. See the recent Sukhoi high-performance single engine stunt aircraft. Wow.
Nitrogen Narcosis isn't as much of a problem in low pressure environments. The problem is when you go diving, more nitrogen is compressed into your blood stream, and when it comes out of solution at lower pressures you have problems. It's not necessarily the pressure gradient that gets you, but the pressure gradient when you have large nitrogen content in your blood. Not as much of a problem in an airliner decompression scenario.
You utterly fail to get the point. The point is not that backdoored crypto will make law enforcement's life easier...that's a given. The point is that history dictates that any power given to the government WILL be abused. Period, stop. I am a lot more worried about the government than about terrorists, because the government is a LOT closer to home. And they have way more guns.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yeah, because the guy was drafting behind a car. That doesn't count.
You might be surprised to notice that the science of aerodynamics has advanced quite a bit in the last 150 years. It's now quite a bit more reliable than, say, psychology.
Bin Laden blames us for the situation in Israel. That's clear from his rhetoric. Israel also exists only because the US supplies them with MASSIVE military aid. You need look no farther than their top-of-the-line F-15 air superiority fighters to see that the US is giving Israel access to the best gear available.
I don't care if you want to talk about "pacifist nations" or "pacifist people" or however you want to slice it. You have not yet illustrated how pacifism is anything other than cowardice (IE, wanting somebody else to do something unpleasant that you do not want to do).
Quakers don't want to defend themselves or their way of life. Fine. How many Quakers are there? Not many. How many Quakers do you think there would be if they lived in a region with scarce resources and another people who were not pacifist? Let me tell you: There would be zero. They might occupy the moral high ground, but they would be dead.
Switzerland is not a nation of pacifists. It's a nation of skilled war-makers who defend their decision to be neutral jealously. I have a great deal of respect for that. I have no respect for an individual (or group) who wants somebody else to do their fighting because they think they're above it.
You're being intentionally dense. Let me restate my challenge, and I'll try to use small words.
Cite a historical example of a successful society that adhered (or adheres) to pacifist principles. In order to be considered successful, that society must exist for more than one generation (that is, longer than the life of its founder).
My argument is that pacifism is only an excuse to not get one's hands dirty. Force is NECESSARY for any society that wants to defend itself and its way of life. To say that one is above fighting is to say that one would rather have somebody else do their fighting for them.
The reason that there exist no pacifist nations is because any pacifist nation would be destroyed in very short order.
I posted it because I thought it was funny...and because it had a tasty grain of truth in the center.
I'm sure that the Chief wasn't really advocating assaulting protestors. I also know that it's not an allegory for the US/Afghanistan situation. It's a thought experiment that demonstrates why pacifism will not work in a world where there exist aggressive societies.
And I'm having a GREAT time watching the uproar! Gosh, I didn't think of it as a troll, but now it sure looks like one...
Ah, so we should trade with Iran, even when they do things that we don't like?
Opposing economic sanctions is just like saying I should trade lunches with a bully, just because he wants my lunch. If Iran/Iraq/whoever wants to do business with the Western world, they might want to tone down their anti-Western rhetoric. Why should I trade with somebody who hates me?
Saudi Arabia is most emphatically NOT occupied. The Saudi government BEGGED the US to station troops on the peninsula to protect them from their imperialistic neighbors. If you think differently, that's OK. You're just wrong.
When did we torture Iraqis?
Timothy McVeigh is the product of Timothy McVeigh. People have free will. For every example of a tortured soul trained by the military, I can provide you with ten examples of great human beings made greater by the discipline and training of military service.
If you want to talk about whether Israel has the right to exist or not, take it up with the UN.
When exactly did we (America) beat people up in the middle east? Was it when we supplied and trained the Afghan counter-insurgents, or was it when we tried to keep the Shah of Iran's moderate government in power?
Oh, I forgot. It was when we tried to enforce the UN's charter of Israel. Silly me. Bomb away, Middle Easterners, we are obviously the Great Satan.
America gets an awful rep as an imperialistic power, but it's never EVER been justified. If we were an imperialistic nation, we would have occupied Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and not worried about what the price of oil was going to be fixed at. Yes, we exercise our foreign policy on the soil of other countries. Yes, we act diplomatically, economically, and militarily to secure our interests abroad. Yes, we make foreign policy mistakes. Name a powerful country that does not.
Yup. In this case, the UN exiss to give the US a hunting license. What else are they for again?
Read again.
More than one generation.
Then explain to me how a pacifist nation justifies maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
The air strikes are aimed at the Taliban's ability to make war (which is REALLY what terrorism is). Without the funds and the training camps, they are powerless on the world stage.
I don't really want the Taliban to be utterly destroyed. That's what makes them different from me. They think that my very ability to live and breathe is an affront to God. I think that they are misguided and dangerous, and should be deprived of the ability to kill me.
Since I live in a big, powerful country, that means I am in a better position to get what I want than they are. Good thing what I want is not to destroy their way of life (although I think it's morally repugnant).
(I'm using the collective I, knowing full well that this individual's power to destroy others is very very limited. The power I exercise by proxy by my support of the US Military, on the other hand, is pretty massive.)
You don't get it. Pacifists argue that we should not hit the terrorists back. People who live in the real world understand that sometimes, force MUST be met with force.
In order to justify the pacifist philosophy, cite a historical example of a pacifist society that lasted more than one generation while in contact with other, non-pacifist societies.
OK, platitudes aside, what should be done? It's great to sit around armchair quarterbacking the biggest foreign policy event of the new millenium, but the people doing it have very little of substance to add to the discussion.
You're right...America should NOT go off half-cocked. The response should be carefully measured and considered. That's what's been going on in the last month. The Taliban have sown the wind, and now they will reap the whirlwind.
As far as the article you linked to, all it illustrates is that America assisted these governments (yes, out of America's self interest, but protected them nonetheless) from the immediate threat of Russian occupation. How did this get us nominated for Great Satan status, exactly?
Oh yeah, we created Israel. Almost forgot about that.
Carry an accelerometer, and compare actual acceleration to predicted acceleration. You'd have to do some signal processing magic to ignore the buffeting, but I bet it'd be doable.
Inertial navigation's not as accurate as GPS, but it'll do in a pinch.
Moofie's RL last name is Gibson. I know, 'cuz I'm Moofie.
Uh oh. I guess they're coming for me now, huh? Note to self...don't give away name on Slashdot.
Is there an analog of Godwin's law that states the first person touting their membership in MENSA automagically loses?
Well, there should be. We can call it Gibson's Corollary to Godwin's Law.
Please don't use the word "engineering" with respect to whatever it is the recording companies do with Ms. Spears and her ilk. Engineering takes intellect and talent. Whatever it is that they do just takes money, and a gullible audience.
Thanks for your consideration. : )
Dude. This server rocks ass. Thank you!
/. makes me type this because I want to thank the person posting the badass mirror. No content here, folks.
Damn
Umm, not to put too fine a point on it, but /. is edited by Americans. Most of the posters are American. If the American bias offends you, that's fine. Nobody's stopping you from making your own site. Hell, they're even giving away the code to do so!
I'm not saying "If you don't like it, get out!" I'm saying "If you don't like it, what's to stop you from doing it differently?"
Not always true. The lift vector's magnitude also depends on angle of attack. So, when flying upside-down (with the less-than-optimal curvature of the wing) requires trimming out at a higher angle of attack than would be used in normal flight.
Some barnstormers might use symmetrical wings, but not all of them. See the recent Sukhoi high-performance single engine stunt aircraft. Wow.
Nitrogen Narcosis isn't as much of a problem in low pressure environments. The problem is when you go diving, more nitrogen is compressed into your blood stream, and when it comes out of solution at lower pressures you have problems. It's not necessarily the pressure gradient that gets you, but the pressure gradient when you have large nitrogen content in your blood. Not as much of a problem in an airliner decompression scenario.
If it's a frangible bullet? Nothing. That's why the poster specified frangible bullets.
*puts on thick Nazi accent* If you haff nothing to hide, you haff nothing to fear.
Great way to run a country, right?
You utterly fail to get the point. The point is not that backdoored crypto will make law enforcement's life easier...that's a given. The point is that history dictates that any power given to the government WILL be abused. Period, stop. I am a lot more worried about the government than about terrorists, because the government is a LOT closer to home. And they have way more guns.