Interestingly, Mexico doesn't have any emissions controls. Cars there aren't even sold with catalytic converters like cars here have been required to since the 70s. So if Mexico City has similar geography to LA, then Mexico City probably has pollution similar to LA in the 70s.
That's ridiculous. Yeah, for any "small government" idiots (that would include people who think they're libertarian, are too uneducated to even know what the term really means, right-wingers, tea-baggers, and people who think they're conservative, but also don't really know what that actually means) who may be reading this; This is what you get when there's no government regulation or a government with regulation, but no enforcement power. That's pretty much a scandal of state capitalism. Had a feeling there was no emission control in Mexco, since there was a story recently (on npr or the wsj) about trucks coming up from Mexico with no safety inspections and no emission control. What can we expect form a narco war zone (that we caused btw).
Thats just pure bullshit. Not the manure you mention but the entire statement. Mexico city is no worse than any american city and compared to many it is as pure as spring water. Maybe you should actually visit a place before badmouthing it.
Yeah? Did you do this in Mexico City? http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/03/04/smog-in-los-angeles/ I really don't think so. Mexico is fine and dandy, but I've seen what comes out of your tailpipes and it's unregulated, like any 3rd world country.
until we move from ICE, it is something we can't do too much about.
That's not really true. Smog has been redued by emission controls in California. If you'd lived in LA in the1970s, you'd know there's a lot that can be done about Smog. http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/03/04/smog-in-los-angeles. You couldn't see a mile back then...it was like living in a forest fire. Things can be done, but not with Republicans and climate change denying Teabaggers running things.
If they don't protect medical devices, including implants against 'hackers', then the politicians who run the FDA won't get the bribes they need for reelection from McAffe, Symantec and Kapersky. This is important stuff, people. Now we just need a paid 'security analyst' to go on TV and frighten grandma "Yes, it's technically possible a person could die" during her mid morning 'news'. That's right after the story about the baby with 3 heads, but after the inspiring story of a dog who saved its friend...a chicken, from a house fire. AWWW.
"We prefer a big government." -> Do you prefer big things in general, or only when they're governments?;-p
"I'll never understand why the Tea Party types want government to be smaller." -> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. More power = more corruption, or at least opportunities to be corrupt. It isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp.
"People that hate government should not be allowed to participate in government." -> *Claps hands* Wonderous! *More clapping* Glorious. *Wipes tear away from eye* If only we applied that logic elsewhere. People who hate businesses, should not be allowed to participate in them. People who hate music should not be allowed to listen to it. People who hate money shouldn't have any. And so on....
Small governments can be powerful. Slashdotters in general just resent the oversimplification. Big=bad, Small=good. The truth is, behind any "powerful" government, is the ability to back it up with force. I don't see any of these Teabaggers pushing for a smaller military or police. What the Teabaggers are really going for (whether they understand this or not) is a government that doesn't regulate corporations. To them, small government = nothing for the end user and everything for the people paying off the ministers of the government (corporations). The one thing power understands in the end, is violence. Do you get it????
All I ever hear is 'the government' is taking personal freedoms away and eroding the constitution. The government is just a tool. In a (sort of) democracy, it can be controlled by anybody. Right now it's being mainly controlled by corporations. If change is desired; campaign finance reform. Why do people find this such a difficult concept? Stop bashing "the government" and focus your gaze on the people paying the people who run it. This is going to get even worse, thanks to PACs and super PACs.
It could place providers in the position of requiring warrants for all law enforcement requests.
Wouldn't that reduce the labor/financial burden on the telcos?
The telcos must be acting at the request of politicians, in exchange for good treatment by the politicians on behalf of the telcos on other unrelated matters.
Not since they've automated it. Most info law enforcement could ever want is available at a web login...warrantlessly. Anything that's "data". On the voice side there is some manual intervention, but that's probably even less since I left 2 years ago. The old 'voice' voicemail platforms were on the way out and everything was going IP.
Why bother with net neutrality when search results can simply be skewed to a person's perceived intelligence or interests, based on some proprietary and probably secret algorithm? This is the perfect way to get around any net neutrality legislation. Beyond that, the idea thumbs its nose at the best feature of the internet: Expanding your mind. If the results are so tailored to what one already thinks, how intelligent the person supposedly is (like that can really be measured anyway) and one's current interests, how does that expand the mind? Seems like keeping everybody their on personal status quo. To my mind, and I don't mean this flippantly, people are generally a tad dull brained...they tend to seek out ideas and opinions that they already believe. I always liked to think that the internet sort of helped people break out of that and find new ideas, new ways of thinking. This idea would seem to automate "Reinforcement Theory" which is already a proclivity for most.
When I went to school, we didn't skip anything. We went over the smallpox brought over (and sometimes transmitted delibrately) by Europeans, we read about the Trail of Tears and the rest of Jackson's Indian removal policy, Custer, the way we stole Texas from Mexico, imperialism, the Spanish-American War, slavery, Japanese internment camps, Hiroshima, the firebombing of Dresden, and our support of various dictators around the world, including the coups we've instigated. There wasn't any hiding.
Of course, I grew up in one of those east-coast godless liberal states... so we were dealing in facts, not "isn't America the most perfect nation ever?" jingoism. If you grew up somewhere else, I'm very sorry.
For the record, although people will be debating the atomic bombing of Japan forever, I think it was justified. There's a lot of evidence that it was a "better watch out" to Russia, who had become aggressive in the area, but I think it stands on its own anyway. The fact is, by that point Japan was going to lose the war. Hirohito had already tried to get his generals to surrender, but it wasn't working. And the US's experience with island-hopping was miserable - effective, but heavy casualties (especially for the Japanese). They literally built planes designed for kamikaze so there were no questions about a willingness to fight to the death. The argument has always been that something overwhelmingly powerful would be the only way to "shock" them into surrender, as opposed to simply destroying their ability to wage war, which would have been a huge number of casualties. Arguably, an atomic bomb (being so powerful on its own) was more effective than a massive conventional bombing campaign would be for that task
Think what you want. Hiroshima is among the most unspeakable crimes in history. I don't think it was justified in the slightest and innocent people are still suffering to this day. . But you don't change people's (wrong) opinions endlessly debating on slashdot and you can't teach someone base morality on the internet.
First off my sig is very much related. When people don't take the time to educate themselves over the issues or who they vote for, then they elect leaders that will lead them to disaster, by trying to over legislate everything, or appealing to a popular belief that takes the country down the wrong road. And I was saying that it doesn't matter whether or not the US forced other states to participate. They still chose to give in to that coercive force, instead of doing what was best for them. I was also saying that international support is international support. It doesn't matter how or why they got that support, just that they did.
Maybe not that unprecedented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War
By that war's end, 72% of the country were opposed. Plus then there was the draft; there has been no draft in decades. You could argue these polls were taken at the end, not the beginning of the war, but one could also argue that the "Iraq War" was not a new war at all; technically, the US was still at war with Iraq over Desert Storm; the terms of the cease fire were repeatedly violated by Hussein, the sanctions undermined by the UN; and our sustained military bases in Saudi Arabia fueling recruitment for Al Qaeda.
Not that any of that makes it a good idea after all.
There was actually very little domestic dissent or press coverage about Vietnam. All the footage you see on the History Channel, the protests etc, that began like five years into Vietnam. The war in Iraq was strongly opposed before it even began. That's the unprecedented part.
I fail to see your point. Using coercive power on other nations is pretty much the definition of hegemonic power, which is what the US had at that time (and to some degree still has today, although it is waning). And you cannot pick and choose, international support is international support, no matter the reasoning or motivation behind it. And when governments go against their peoples' will, they get punished, as both the US government and the governments of other states (such as Britain) experienced. It's all about capital; even at that level there is a finite level of goodwill, of public support. The US used up a lot of it's excess capital, both domestically and internationally, during the Iraq War. No one can logically refute this. But coercive force, whether violent or nonviolent, whether it's through the carrot or the stick, is the bedrock upon which international politics, and really politics in general, is built. Despite wishes and attempts to the contrary, might really does make right. Even the UN tries to use coercive force on a daily basis, it just generally uses the threat of sanctions or the promise of aid to do so. Would it be better if every state cooperated and selflessly worked together? Of course. But that is not how the world works. The world is a zero sum game. You can decide to stop playing, but you'll lose. As long as one state is playing the game, every state has to if they want to keep any of their power.
Uh yeah, great argument. You do realize even dictators have finite political capital and are still, to some degree, accountable to their population. Your argument doesn't hold water. And as a side note, your auto signature is stupid; the two things aren't even related...only very tenuously. Learn to think and get back to me.
The whole "used nukes in anger" remark is nonsense.
We were in the middle of a war. We had been leveling cities for strategic purposes for a long while before we decided to do it with a single device.
People that like to fixate on the nukes tend to ignore all of the other cities that got bombed and all of the other people that got killed. They also tend to trivialize the Japanese.
I often wonder if there isn't a bit of racism mixed in there, trivializing the Japanese.
There's some racism; but mostly it's just ignoring one's own crimes. The US is entirely guilty of both, especiallly the latter and *very* consistently. Take Pol Pot. While our enemies were causing genocide in Cambodia, of course it was getting *heavy* press here in the US. What did not get press was East Timor and was happening at *exactly* the same time, was just as severe, but the US was funding the aggressors (indonesia), so no reporting. History rarely makes a controlled experiment, but in that case it did and you can see how lock-step the press and government was in the US at prosecuting one and ignoring the other. Or take the Nazi Holocaust. It was awful, you hear about it all the time...6 million Jewish people killed. Do you hear about the Native American Holocaust? Not much. Even though probably 2-10 times (estimates vary) as many dark skinned natives were slaughtered. The difference was that we weren't responsible for the former, but entirely responsible for the latter. That generalizes....and it's real consistent. It's not just the US; all power systems ignore their own crimes. And their intellecutal class helps by writing history in their favor. If you want to read bad things about the US regarding Hiroshima, you'll probably have to read some subversive book, or simply visit a library in a country that isn't real fond of the US.
Except 1 is demonstrably false, as much as many people here would like to believe to the contrary, and 4 is questionable as well (is there corruption? of course. But is the corruption level high? not really, especially compared to many other states in the world). 2 is certainly true, and I guess 3 would be as well, given a rather loose definition of "regularly". It should be noted that all of the wars the US was involved in in recent history were undertaken with international participation, if not broad international support (yes, even in Iraq). I know you're just trying to score points by showing that the US is evil and more dangerous than states like North Korea or Iran, but even a basic knowledge of the issues shows your assertion is not all that well supported by the facts.
Were you in a coma during the Bush administration? The Iraq war had so little international support A few other countries that we have a lot of control over (France, UK, fucking Poland), after using all of our might to twist their arms, sent a few troops (against their citizens will...and they knew it). Not to mention the fact that something like 80% of the American public was totally against the Iraq war before it even started and it was even higher in EU nations. The PEOPLE (remember, we're not dictatorial), you know, the ones who pay for this shit, DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO WAR. That's unprecedented in US history. How is that not dictatorial? Bush went to war anyway, pretty much in the manner of a totalitarian state. Even watching the corporate shill press, you could clearly see this was just George Bush's war. Also, comparing the US to N Korea is a lot like overusing the Nazi/Bush analogies. Wise up, you can live in a (sort of) democratic society, that sometimes acts in totalitarian ways. That's what we have here. There is no correlation between the internal freedoms in a society and violent external behavior -- and all governments are ruthless to the extent that they are powerful.
Really? Saying other people should "fuck yourself and die in a fire, because you're a leech - a parasite" over vaccinations...yeah not extreme at all. It's your kid getting the fucking flu or something, OK, social leper? Also, just your twisted perspective....about your kid possibly dying is....appalling "I'm fine being the one to pay for a much greater benefit to society". (with your kid's life) OK maybe the underlying idea isn't stupid, but the statement is extreme and just lacks all tact. I think the wording of the post was extreme, although I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment. In other words, tone it down, freak.
Republicans were ike that post-Eisenhower and pre-George Bush.
Remember when the DEMOCRATS were for small government and individual rights (except blacks)? Now they boss us around as if we were employees of the governments. "Buy insurance." "Throw-away your lightbulbs." "Put black boxes in your cars." "Submit to random VIPR patdowns all across the country."
When both parties are pro-government, then it's only a matter of time until a "you can't trust the government" contingent arrives on the scene. As Jefferson stated, that is the natural tendency of the party system: 1 for more government; 1 for less government. I predict it will happen within the Republican party, thanks to the Ron Paul movement (started 2007).
Yes. Every day of the week I would be satisfied while taking one for the team. If my 2 year old had a severe reaction, it would suck greatly, but I'm fine being the one to pay for a much greater benefit to society. It also helps that I've got nieces and nephews that benefit from near-universal vaccinations. Being a part of society means you give up something to receive a much greater benefit, and in this case I'm taking the risk that my son will have a severe reaction in exchange for the much greater benefits for him, the rest of my family, and society as a whole not suffering from those diseases. If you're not willing to take that risk, then go fuck yourself and die in a fire, because you're a leech - a parasite who'd rather hurt those around him than tolerate a little risk.
I think your positions are a bit extreme. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that.
Boomers? No. Financial theorists of the late 1970's/early 1980's? Yes. That's roughly when the concept of "maximizing shareholder value" started to get taught in business school. (I was there, I know. Big name east coast B school - it was on all my professors' lips.)
It was BS then, it's BS now - it misses the basic fact that a corporation has three constituencies, not one - customers, employees, and yes, shareholders. Take care of the first two, and the third will do just fine, thank you very much. Pay your employees what they are worth, give your customers what they pay for, focus on delivery and not empty marketing, and the value of your business (and hence your shareholders' worth) will grow accordingly.
It takes thinking past this quarter's results. Under pressure from investors and analysts, that's hard to do - so hard, I think just about the single worst thing a successful company can do is go public. (Looking at you, Facebook...)
Yeah, financial theorists are part of it, but it still takes a gullible, apathetic public to allow the actual polcies to be implemented. Truth is, the policies are doing exactly what they were intended to do; bankrupt the government by putting it so deeply in debt, there would be no way to provide any social services, corporate oversight, regulation, etc. That's not even to mention the *huge* corporate propaganda campaigns teaching people to hate their government and hate anything resembling social welfare. It's all working out great...for corporations. Now, who allowed that to happen? The public. Who voted back then? The fucking boomers.
Retiring boomers are being replaced by engineers overseas who are just as good but one quarter the salary. Customer facing employees of course are still being hired domestically though your shiny new CS degree is not going to see much use in a project coordination role.
Even mentioning the word "boomer" triggers rage in me. It's boomer *gullibility*, greed and shortsightedness that brought us to the global MESS we find ourselves mired in. We'll be paying for their bad decisions for the next 500 years. We have to find a way to get stupid, greedy, gullible, suggestible, magical thinking people OUT of power.
It kills me when I see a copy of one of the many despicable U.S. tabloids at someones house and they dismiss the fact that they bought at as "just for fun", or that they "don't take it seriously", or whatever excuse they have. Supporting bad shit with your money is not a victimless crime. It's that mentality that led to Rupert Murdoch owning the fucking Wall Street Journal.
Across the board, Murdoch's media properties have a right-wing slant and lack integrity; that's hardly news. What i found surprising, after reading a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings (super left wing and I agree with almost everything he says), is that the Wall Street Journal is incredibly accurate. In fact, the business press in general. Seriously...hear me out on this one...I'm not talking about the WSJ editorial page, which is just right-wing opinion (and sucks a lot), but the actual news content of the business press. You don't have to believe in state capitalism to know that it's the prevailing system, so if you want to know what's *actually* going on in the world, the London Financial times, WSJ, sometimes Businessweek are the places to go. After all, they have to give their readers an accurate picture of the world that they own. So, that's where I get my news. I don't like reading any of it, I don't really like handing Murdoch money, but I like realistic reporting and you get that from WSJ and FT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r3z1Wp6nWc
Trying to reconcile the garbage that is man made global warming with real science. It forces more and more people to adopt stupidity and idiocy instead of rational thought.
I fully expect the MSM to be chock full of lies, but here at/. I expected a little more honesty and rebellion. Ars-technica is now riddled with idiots who believe in man made global warming. Are you here the same now as well? Have you surrendered that much honesty and objectivity?
The Republican party now has its catechism of things you have to repeat in lockstep, kind of like the old Communist party. One of them is denying climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, Mexico doesn't have any emissions controls. Cars there aren't even sold with catalytic converters like cars here have been required to since the 70s. So if Mexico City has similar geography to LA, then Mexico City probably has pollution similar to LA in the 70s.
That's ridiculous. Yeah, for any "small government" idiots (that would include people who think they're libertarian, are too uneducated to even know what the term really means, right-wingers, tea-baggers, and people who think they're conservative, but also don't really know what that actually means) who may be reading this; This is what you get when there's no government regulation or a government with regulation, but no enforcement power. That's pretty much a scandal of state capitalism. Had a feeling there was no emission control in Mexco, since there was a story recently (on npr or the wsj) about trucks coming up from Mexico with no safety inspections and no emission control. What can we expect form a narco war zone (that we caused btw).
Thats just pure bullshit. Not the manure you mention but the entire statement. Mexico city is no worse than any american city and compared to many it is as pure as spring water. Maybe you should actually visit a place before badmouthing it.
Yeah? Did you do this in Mexico City? http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/03/04/smog-in-los-angeles/ I really don't think so. Mexico is fine and dandy, but I've seen what comes out of your tailpipes and it's unregulated, like any 3rd world country.
until we move from ICE, it is something we can't do too much about.
That's not really true. Smog has been redued by emission controls in California. If you'd lived in LA in the1970s, you'd know there's a lot that can be done about Smog. http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/03/04/smog-in-los-angeles. You couldn't see a mile back then...it was like living in a forest fire. Things can be done, but not with Republicans and climate change denying Teabaggers running things.
If they don't protect medical devices, including implants against 'hackers', then the politicians who run the FDA won't get the bribes they need for reelection from McAffe, Symantec and Kapersky. This is important stuff, people. Now we just need a paid 'security analyst' to go on TV and frighten grandma "Yes, it's technically possible a person could die" during her mid morning 'news'. That's right after the story about the baby with 3 heads, but after the inspiring story of a dog who saved its friend...a chicken, from a house fire. AWWW.
"We prefer a big government." -> Do you prefer big things in general, or only when they're governments? ;-p
"I'll never understand why the Tea Party types want government to be smaller." -> Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. More power = more corruption, or at least opportunities to be corrupt. It isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp.
"People that hate government should not be allowed to participate in government." -> *Claps hands* Wonderous! *More clapping* Glorious. *Wipes tear away from eye* If only we applied that logic elsewhere. People who hate businesses, should not be allowed to participate in them. People who hate music should not be allowed to listen to it. People who hate money shouldn't have any. And so on....
Small governments can be powerful. Slashdotters in general just resent the oversimplification. Big=bad, Small=good. The truth is, behind any "powerful" government, is the ability to back it up with force. I don't see any of these Teabaggers pushing for a smaller military or police. What the Teabaggers are really going for (whether they understand this or not) is a government that doesn't regulate corporations. To them, small government = nothing for the end user and everything for the people paying off the ministers of the government (corporations). The one thing power understands in the end, is violence. Do you get it????
All I ever hear is 'the government' is taking personal freedoms away and eroding the constitution. The government is just a tool. In a (sort of) democracy, it can be controlled by anybody. Right now it's being mainly controlled by corporations. If change is desired; campaign finance reform. Why do people find this such a difficult concept? Stop bashing "the government" and focus your gaze on the people paying the people who run it. This is going to get even worse, thanks to PACs and super PACs.
Wouldn't that reduce the labor/financial burden on the telcos?
The telcos must be acting at the request of politicians, in exchange for good treatment by the politicians on behalf of the telcos on other unrelated matters.
Not since they've automated it. Most info law enforcement could ever want is available at a web login...warrantlessly. Anything that's "data". On the voice side there is some manual intervention, but that's probably even less since I left 2 years ago. The old 'voice' voicemail platforms were on the way out and everything was going IP.
http://michaelbelfiore.com/2012/03/boeing-cst-100-space-minivan.html
Libertarianism isn't an "every man for himself" anarchy. Where do people get this idea?
From the same place you got the idea that Anarchy is?
Why bother with net neutrality when search results can simply be skewed to a person's perceived intelligence or interests, based on some proprietary and probably secret algorithm? This is the perfect way to get around any net neutrality legislation. Beyond that, the idea thumbs its nose at the best feature of the internet: Expanding your mind. If the results are so tailored to what one already thinks, how intelligent the person supposedly is (like that can really be measured anyway) and one's current interests, how does that expand the mind? Seems like keeping everybody their on personal status quo. To my mind, and I don't mean this flippantly, people are generally a tad dull brained...they tend to seek out ideas and opinions that they already believe. I always liked to think that the internet sort of helped people break out of that and find new ideas, new ways of thinking. This idea would seem to automate "Reinforcement Theory" which is already a proclivity for most.
But, tt's roughly the gaming equivalent of Ladies Night at the classy local sports bar.
What?
When I went to school, we didn't skip anything. We went over the smallpox brought over (and sometimes transmitted delibrately) by Europeans, we read about the Trail of Tears and the rest of Jackson's Indian removal policy, Custer, the way we stole Texas from Mexico, imperialism, the Spanish-American War, slavery, Japanese internment camps, Hiroshima, the firebombing of Dresden, and our support of various dictators around the world, including the coups we've instigated. There wasn't any hiding.
Of course, I grew up in one of those east-coast godless liberal states... so we were dealing in facts, not "isn't America the most perfect nation ever?" jingoism. If you grew up somewhere else, I'm very sorry.
For the record, although people will be debating the atomic bombing of Japan forever, I think it was justified. There's a lot of evidence that it was a "better watch out" to Russia, who had become aggressive in the area, but I think it stands on its own anyway. The fact is, by that point Japan was going to lose the war. Hirohito had already tried to get his generals to surrender, but it wasn't working. And the US's experience with island-hopping was miserable - effective, but heavy casualties (especially for the Japanese). They literally built planes designed for kamikaze so there were no questions about a willingness to fight to the death. The argument has always been that something overwhelmingly powerful would be the only way to "shock" them into surrender, as opposed to simply destroying their ability to wage war, which would have been a huge number of casualties. Arguably, an atomic bomb (being so powerful on its own) was more effective than a massive conventional bombing campaign would be for that task
Think what you want. Hiroshima is among the most unspeakable crimes in history. I don't think it was justified in the slightest and innocent people are still suffering to this day. . But you don't change people's (wrong) opinions endlessly debating on slashdot and you can't teach someone base morality on the internet.
First off my sig is very much related. When people don't take the time to educate themselves over the issues or who they vote for, then they elect leaders that will lead them to disaster, by trying to over legislate everything, or appealing to a popular belief that takes the country down the wrong road. And I was saying that it doesn't matter whether or not the US forced other states to participate. They still chose to give in to that coercive force, instead of doing what was best for them. I was also saying that international support is international support. It doesn't matter how or why they got that support, just that they did.
Stalin would agree with you on all counts.
Maybe not that unprecedented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War By that war's end, 72% of the country were opposed. Plus then there was the draft; there has been no draft in decades. You could argue these polls were taken at the end, not the beginning of the war, but one could also argue that the "Iraq War" was not a new war at all; technically, the US was still at war with Iraq over Desert Storm; the terms of the cease fire were repeatedly violated by Hussein, the sanctions undermined by the UN; and our sustained military bases in Saudi Arabia fueling recruitment for Al Qaeda. Not that any of that makes it a good idea after all.
There was actually very little domestic dissent or press coverage about Vietnam. All the footage you see on the History Channel, the protests etc, that began like five years into Vietnam. The war in Iraq was strongly opposed before it even began. That's the unprecedented part.
I fail to see your point. Using coercive power on other nations is pretty much the definition of hegemonic power, which is what the US had at that time (and to some degree still has today, although it is waning). And you cannot pick and choose, international support is international support, no matter the reasoning or motivation behind it. And when governments go against their peoples' will, they get punished, as both the US government and the governments of other states (such as Britain) experienced. It's all about capital; even at that level there is a finite level of goodwill, of public support. The US used up a lot of it's excess capital, both domestically and internationally, during the Iraq War. No one can logically refute this. But coercive force, whether violent or nonviolent, whether it's through the carrot or the stick, is the bedrock upon which international politics, and really politics in general, is built. Despite wishes and attempts to the contrary, might really does make right. Even the UN tries to use coercive force on a daily basis, it just generally uses the threat of sanctions or the promise of aid to do so. Would it be better if every state cooperated and selflessly worked together? Of course. But that is not how the world works. The world is a zero sum game. You can decide to stop playing, but you'll lose. As long as one state is playing the game, every state has to if they want to keep any of their power.
Uh yeah, great argument. You do realize even dictators have finite political capital and are still, to some degree, accountable to their population. Your argument doesn't hold water. And as a side note, your auto signature is stupid; the two things aren't even related...only very tenuously. Learn to think and get back to me.
The whole "used nukes in anger" remark is nonsense.
We were in the middle of a war. We had been leveling cities for strategic purposes for a long while before we decided to do it with a single device.
People that like to fixate on the nukes tend to ignore all of the other cities that got bombed and all of the other people that got killed. They also tend to trivialize the Japanese.
I often wonder if there isn't a bit of racism mixed in there, trivializing the Japanese.
There's some racism; but mostly it's just ignoring one's own crimes. The US is entirely guilty of both, especiallly the latter and *very* consistently. Take Pol Pot. While our enemies were causing genocide in Cambodia, of course it was getting *heavy* press here in the US. What did not get press was East Timor and was happening at *exactly* the same time, was just as severe, but the US was funding the aggressors (indonesia), so no reporting. History rarely makes a controlled experiment, but in that case it did and you can see how lock-step the press and government was in the US at prosecuting one and ignoring the other. Or take the Nazi Holocaust. It was awful, you hear about it all the time...6 million Jewish people killed. Do you hear about the Native American Holocaust? Not much. Even though probably 2-10 times (estimates vary) as many dark skinned natives were slaughtered. The difference was that we weren't responsible for the former, but entirely responsible for the latter. That generalizes....and it's real consistent. It's not just the US; all power systems ignore their own crimes. And their intellecutal class helps by writing history in their favor. If you want to read bad things about the US regarding Hiroshima, you'll probably have to read some subversive book, or simply visit a library in a country that isn't real fond of the US.
Except 1 is demonstrably false, as much as many people here would like to believe to the contrary, and 4 is questionable as well (is there corruption? of course. But is the corruption level high? not really, especially compared to many other states in the world). 2 is certainly true, and I guess 3 would be as well, given a rather loose definition of "regularly". It should be noted that all of the wars the US was involved in in recent history were undertaken with international participation, if not broad international support (yes, even in Iraq). I know you're just trying to score points by showing that the US is evil and more dangerous than states like North Korea or Iran, but even a basic knowledge of the issues shows your assertion is not all that well supported by the facts.
Were you in a coma during the Bush administration? The Iraq war had so little international support A few other countries that we have a lot of control over (France, UK, fucking Poland), after using all of our might to twist their arms, sent a few troops (against their citizens will...and they knew it). Not to mention the fact that something like 80% of the American public was totally against the Iraq war before it even started and it was even higher in EU nations. The PEOPLE (remember, we're not dictatorial), you know, the ones who pay for this shit, DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO WAR. That's unprecedented in US history. How is that not dictatorial? Bush went to war anyway, pretty much in the manner of a totalitarian state. Even watching the corporate shill press, you could clearly see this was just George Bush's war. Also, comparing the US to N Korea is a lot like overusing the Nazi/Bush analogies. Wise up, you can live in a (sort of) democratic society, that sometimes acts in totalitarian ways. That's what we have here. There is no correlation between the internal freedoms in a society and violent external behavior -- and all governments are ruthless to the extent that they are powerful.
What's extreme about it?
Really? Saying other people should "fuck yourself and die in a fire, because you're a leech - a parasite" over vaccinations...yeah not extreme at all. It's your kid getting the fucking flu or something, OK, social leper? Also, just your twisted perspective....about your kid possibly dying is....appalling "I'm fine being the one to pay for a much greater benefit to society". (with your kid's life) OK maybe the underlying idea isn't stupid, but the statement is extreme and just lacks all tact. I think the wording of the post was extreme, although I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment. In other words, tone it down, freak.
Republicans were ike that post-Eisenhower and pre-George Bush. Remember when the DEMOCRATS were for small government and individual rights (except blacks)? Now they boss us around as if we were employees of the governments. "Buy insurance." "Throw-away your lightbulbs." "Put black boxes in your cars." "Submit to random VIPR patdowns all across the country."
When both parties are pro-government, then it's only a matter of time until a "you can't trust the government" contingent arrives on the scene. As Jefferson stated, that is the natural tendency of the party system: 1 for more government; 1 for less government. I predict it will happen within the Republican party, thanks to the Ron Paul movement (started 2007).
Hopefully it'll be the occupy movement instead.
Yes. Every day of the week I would be satisfied while taking one for the team. If my 2 year old had a severe reaction, it would suck greatly, but I'm fine being the one to pay for a much greater benefit to society. It also helps that I've got nieces and nephews that benefit from near-universal vaccinations. Being a part of society means you give up something to receive a much greater benefit, and in this case I'm taking the risk that my son will have a severe reaction in exchange for the much greater benefits for him, the rest of my family, and society as a whole not suffering from those diseases. If you're not willing to take that risk, then go fuck yourself and die in a fire, because you're a leech - a parasite who'd rather hurt those around him than tolerate a little risk.
I think your positions are a bit extreme. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that.
Boomers? No. Financial theorists of the late 1970's/early 1980's? Yes. That's roughly when the concept of "maximizing shareholder value" started to get taught in business school. (I was there, I know. Big name east coast B school - it was on all my professors' lips.)
It was BS then, it's BS now - it misses the basic fact that a corporation has three constituencies, not one - customers, employees, and yes, shareholders. Take care of the first two, and the third will do just fine, thank you very much. Pay your employees what they are worth, give your customers what they pay for, focus on delivery and not empty marketing, and the value of your business (and hence your shareholders' worth) will grow accordingly.
It takes thinking past this quarter's results. Under pressure from investors and analysts, that's hard to do - so hard, I think just about the single worst thing a successful company can do is go public. (Looking at you, Facebook...)
Yeah, financial theorists are part of it, but it still takes a gullible, apathetic public to allow the actual polcies to be implemented. Truth is, the policies are doing exactly what they were intended to do; bankrupt the government by putting it so deeply in debt, there would be no way to provide any social services, corporate oversight, regulation, etc. That's not even to mention the *huge* corporate propaganda campaigns teaching people to hate their government and hate anything resembling social welfare. It's all working out great...for corporations. Now, who allowed that to happen? The public. Who voted back then? The fucking boomers.
A cloud bubble DOUBLE rainbow!
Huh? What does it mean?
It means he's stoned
Retiring boomers are being replaced by engineers overseas who are just as good but one quarter the salary. Customer facing employees of course are still being hired domestically though your shiny new CS degree is not going to see much use in a project coordination role.
Even mentioning the word "boomer" triggers rage in me. It's boomer *gullibility*, greed and shortsightedness that brought us to the global MESS we find ourselves mired in. We'll be paying for their bad decisions for the next 500 years. We have to find a way to get stupid, greedy, gullible, suggestible, magical thinking people OUT of power.
It kills me when I see a copy of one of the many despicable U.S. tabloids at someones house and they dismiss the fact that they bought at as "just for fun", or that they "don't take it seriously", or whatever excuse they have. Supporting bad shit with your money is not a victimless crime. It's that mentality that led to Rupert Murdoch owning the fucking Wall Street Journal.
Across the board, Murdoch's media properties have a right-wing slant and lack integrity; that's hardly news. What i found surprising, after reading a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings (super left wing and I agree with almost everything he says), is that the Wall Street Journal is incredibly accurate. In fact, the business press in general. Seriously...hear me out on this one...I'm not talking about the WSJ editorial page, which is just right-wing opinion (and sucks a lot), but the actual news content of the business press. You don't have to believe in state capitalism to know that it's the prevailing system, so if you want to know what's *actually* going on in the world, the London Financial times, WSJ, sometimes Businessweek are the places to go. After all, they have to give their readers an accurate picture of the world that they own. So, that's where I get my news. I don't like reading any of it, I don't really like handing Murdoch money, but I like realistic reporting and you get that from WSJ and FT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r3z1Wp6nWc
Trying to reconcile the garbage that is man made global warming with real science. It forces more and more people to adopt stupidity and idiocy instead of rational thought.
I fully expect the MSM to be chock full of lies, but here at /. I expected a little more honesty and rebellion. Ars-technica is now riddled with idiots who believe in man made global warming. Are you here the same now as well? Have you surrendered that much honesty and objectivity?
The Republican party now has its catechism of things you have to repeat in lockstep, kind of like the old Communist party. One of them is denying climate change.