Surely if we have the technology to turn a dead worl into a living one, we must have the technology to properly maintain an already living one.
Well yeah, the earth is 97% terraformed, we just need to get it a few degrees cooler.:-)
We can't have a technological solution to global warming, we can't have climate engineering, that doesn't forward the political agendas of centralization of authority and redistribution of wealth. Only political/social solutions to global warming are acceptable. We can't just keep using science and engineering to escape malthusian(-like) catastrophes.
Wow, saying the confederate flag means slavery, hatred, bigotry and treason... Some people say the flag means that, some people say it means states rights, who knows.
Anyone who read the various southern state's secession documents know. Secession and the creation of the confederacy was absolutely and unambiguous about defending the institution of slavery. Its their words written at the time, that's how we know.
But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union?
The resurgence of the confederate flag in the 1960s was as a symbol of opposition to the civil rights movement, a symbol of the support for segregation. So at best it drops slavery and still represents hatred and bigotry even in its modern incarnation.
Maybe they just want to stand for a weaker Federal government, something many people support today.
And their are many other flags to choose from, flags without the baggage of slavery, racism and bigotry. Pick any of the numerous revolutionary war era flags being used for such purposes. People who choose the confederate flag are choosing to be associated with that baggage.
Maybe the reason they fly the flag is to respect their ancestors who fought and died for what they believe in.
While individual confederate soldiers had a wide range of beliefs and opinions one can not evade the simple fact that they volunteered for an army that was created to defend a government that was itself created to defend the institution of slavery. That army existed to by force of arms enact the government's defense of slavery. The flag inherently represents this army and slavery's defense. Its a poor choice to represent a soldier who did not believe in slavery, its a good fit for one who did believe in slavery.
Would you ask someone to take down the original U.S. flag that so heavily fought for their rights and owned slaves?
The U.S. government was create for reasons other than slavery but grudgingly accepted slavery as a concession necessary to form the government in the first place. A concession believed not set in stone but one to be revisited in the future, and one which in fact was revisited over and over again in the legislature. This is quite different than the confederate government that was created to defend the institution of slavery.
My point is, people are afraid of a flag that is being flown for many reasons.
My point is that there are deniers of history and that their opinions can be discarded. The confederate flag was created in the defense of slavery, it was resurrected in the defense of segregation.
The civil war is over and the south lost. I wasn't around 150 years ago, so I'll reserve judgement on what it was over.
You can however read the secession documents written by southern leaders 150 years ago where they clearly and unambiguously state that they are acting in the defense of the institution of slavery.
But if someone feels it simply represents their heritage, then so be it.
Well if their heritage is defense of the institution of slavery so be it. The flag of an army dedicated to the defense of a government that is dedicated to the defense of slavery is an army dedicated to the defense of slavery. Any other meaning is delusional. While individual confederate soldiers may have had a wide variety of motivations and beliefs their army and their government had a clear motivation, the defense of slavery
The British flag is also part of that seal. Shouldn't it be removed too?
The American Revolution was about political differences. Those can be reconciled. When a war is about the defense of slavery there is no reconciliation with the pro-slavery argument.
It's supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to be a racist ass, then so be it.
No problem. The debate is merely about rebranding a symbol of the defense of slavery as something else. You can't even argue that its modern meaning has evolved. It didn't begin flying all over government grounds until the 1960s as a symbol of segregationist opposition to civil rights.
Perhaps failing to recognize that the battle flag represents a defense of slavery by force of arms has something to do with it. When the national government is inherently about the defense of the institution of slavery, their words in their secession documents, then the army of that government is also inherently about the defense of the institution of slavery. The thoughts and opinions of an individual soldier does not change these facts.
This flag is a poor choice to remember the soldier by, assuming of course that the soldier did not believe in perpetuating slavery.
The national flag of the Confederate States does means secession and slavery, but that's not the flag we're talking about... The flag we're talking about was created to boost morale of the soldiers, and was only for use in battle.
No. The confederate national flag was too similar to the US flag. On the battlefield units were being misidentified as friend or foe. So a confederate battle flag was created motivated by the need to a distinctive differentiated look compared to the US flag.
It was not a political flag... it was referred to as "the soldiers' flag."
OK. The confederate national flag represents a government that was created to defend the institution of slavery. Their words in their secession declarations proves this. So the confederate battle flag only represents those who fought to defend a government dedicated to the defense of slavery. Any non-slavery motivations an individual soldier may have had does not change the fact that he ultimately fought to defend slavery. The confederate battle flag is inherently a symbol of the defense of slavery by force of arms.
Had this same conversation with my wife. You can no longer buy a Confederate Flag at Wal-Mart, but you can still buy guns.
You know who was a big advocate of gun rights in the south when confederate flags were being resurrected during the 1960s civil rights era? Southern blacks.
Besides blacks, you know what another big market for guns is? Non-racist whites.
Nobody is outlawing anything. This is an example of a business choosing not to publish something.
Yes but is there any discretion applied or is it a complete ban? Declining to publish a racing game with a car with a big confederate flag on it is one thing. Declining to publish a military strategy game that uses a historical setting like Gettysburg where Confederate troops on the field of battle are carrying a Confederate flag is something else.
In other words is there any consideration for historical context and historically accurate use?
From an American perspective, the Texas state flag is a rebel flag too; culturally speaking that is.
The Texas state flag predates the Confederacy. The Confederacy was created to defend the institution of slavery, the Confederate flag represents that defense of the institution of slavery. The Texas flag does not inherently represent such a defense of slavery, like many other Southern state flags, where the people of the state misguidedly decided to defend the Confederate government.
Of course I am referring to the state flags of old, not those modern state flags that embed the confederate flag.
You know, from a British perspective, the US flag is a rebel flag as well. Just sayin.
True. I doubt it flies above any government buildings in the United Kingdom...
The US flag flew in the United Kingdom during WW2 in the camps and on the bases of US soldiers, sailors and airmen.
See, when one has a war over a political disagreement an amicable reconciliation is possible. Unlike when a war is fought over the defense of the institution of slavery.
To give you my best sound bites on the subject: The Civil War was fought over secession. Secession was about slavery. The Civil War became more about slavery, but a lot of that was diplomatic. The Emancipation Proclamation, while it freed no slaves at the time, established the war as freedom vs. slavery for diplomatic consumption, ensuring that Britain would not intervene on the Confederate side.
I'll reply with additional sound bites: The Southern leadership decided upon secession and war to defend the institution of slavery. The Southern soldier may have had other reasons in his mind but he ultimately defended a government created to perpetuate slavery. Wars are often declared for one reason but sold to the public for entirely different reasons because of public disinterest in the actual reason.
Slavery was an economic necessity due to trade restrictions imposed on Southern crops
Trade was not restricted on Southern crops. Trade was restricted on finished goods (textiles) coming from England that were made of southern cotton. As we saw post-war the South was perfectly capable of creating its own textile mills and producing finished goods itself. Slavery was not an economic necessity, it was a convenience for the wealthy. Plus the North recognized this ugly fact and was willing to allow slavery to continue if existing slave states.
The North was only letting new states in as 'free' states, to curtail the power of the South.
No, to limit (and eventually abolish) the abomination of slavery. How would a free Southern state curtail the power of the South? There were regions of the South where there wasn't much slavery. Unless of course you are saying that the power of the South was not a cultural philosophical power but rather an economic power based primarily on slavery.
Face it, secession was all about slavery. The southern leadership's wealth and power was slave based. Their words in their secession documents state that defense of the institution of slavery was a primary cause for secession. Their words at the time of secession. How does it not get any clearer than that?
No, your modern southern ideology is bullshit. Read what your southern leaders wrote in their secession documents, the defense of the institution of slavery is their primary cause for secession and war. Its their own friggin words at the time they seceded.
The southern leadership's wealth and power was based on slavery. Their creation, the confederate government, was brought into existence to defend the institution of slavery. The fact that Johnny Reb didn't have slavery on his mind when he signed up does not change this fact. Regardless of what was in his head he fought to defend a government that existed to defend slavery. Johnny Reb didn't vote for secession and slavery, he didn't start the war, he just fought it. The modern southern ideology that focuses on Johnny Reb's thoughts is revisionist bullshit, a denial of the truth of behind southern leadership and behind the confederate government.
The Civil War was about states rights and economic power. It was about how much power the federal government could wield against the states. It was about the industrialization of the northern states competing with slave labor economy in the south. It was about money and the slavery issue was the perfect camouflage because it provided the emotional response needed to generate support for the war in both the north and the south.
You are right it was about money. Your analysis is fatally flawed though. In the North slavery was a sort of camouflage, the North was willing to allow it to persist in existing slave states, the Emancipation Proclamation was only valid in rebel held territory, characterizing the war as about slavery was a method to keep the British from aiding the Confederates.
However in the South while it was about money too it is inescapable that this money and the power it provided was derived from the institution of slavery. So in the South the war was absolutely about slavery, secession necessary because non-slave states would eventually outnumber slave states. Most important of all the secession documents all cite defense of the institution of slavery as a primary cause for war. The Southern politicians who voted for war put it in writing when they had all the power. Don't let the fact that many ordinary Southern workers and farmers would not be willing to fight to defend slavery fool you. Secession occurred and war was declared by the Southern elites whose wealth was derived from slavery. Their creation, the confederate government, was therefore absolutely about the defense of the institution of slavery. What was in a confederate soldier's mind does not change this. In the south the camouflage is the non-slavery motivations for war. A soldiers loyalty to his state the camouflage for the defense of slavery.
You must live in a Northern State, Down south our history books tell a different story.
Yes, your Southern history books ignore all the state secession documents that clearly state the preservation of the institution of slavery as a main cause for war. They ignore the fact that the decision makers, the 1%, decided to vote for war and to initiate war to defend their source of wealth and power, slavery. Instead your history books like to focus on the cover stories that the 1% used to sell the war to the 99% with. It doesn't matter if great-great-great-grandpappy didn't personally fight to protect slavery in his own mind, he in fact did so by defending the confederacy which as a government was inherently about the preservation of slavery.
You may want to read up on the subject. The Civil was did not start because of slavery and was not because of slavery.
It is you who need to read up, for example read what was written at the time of secession. Secession declaration after secession declaration cites the institution of slavery of the primary cause.
After the was the great coverup began in the south, the rebrand the war as something else. In particular to rebrand the war in terms of some of the sales pitches the 1% used to recruit the 99% for the army. The fact remains that the 1% made the decision to go to war and that decision was made to defend the basic of the wealth and power, slavery. What the 99% thought about why they were fighting does not change this fact, does not change why the war was started. If the war was started over slavery then the 99% fought to defense slavery, period, what thoughts they had otherwise was just the sales pitch made by the 1%. Image that, a war fought for one reason but sold to the public for different reasons.
This is revisionist history. The North won so obviously they twisted the truth in the history books to make the Southern states out to be demons. Of course they would. MOST southerners DID NOT own slaves during that time. Yet we all went to war. Congress made a series of aggressive moves that pushed the southern states into a war.
No, the revisionist history is from the south. At the time of secession, one secession declaration after another repeatedly cited slavery. The "aggression" was the north wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states with the goal of adding non-slave states to the union and eventually voting in abolition. That was the confederate nightmare, well the nightmare of the confederate 1%. Its this confederate 1% whose wealth and power was slave based that made the decision to go to war, who wrote those declarations.
The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. So the 1% had to sell the war to the 99% using different arguments. Imagine that, a war waged for one reason but sold to the public for other reasons. So while some confederate soldiers may not have been willing to fight for slavery itself, they in fact did so because that was the absolute cause behind the war, why the 1% voted for war.
The confederate soldiers were the pawns of the confederate politicians. Pawns that defended their "betters" economic interests, slavery. Yes, this truth hurts. Hence the revisionism, hence the focus on great-great-great-grandpappy's love for his state to rebrand a symbol of the defense of slavery as a symbol of heritage.
No. It was absolutely about slavery. The documents and statements written at the time of secession were all about slavery. The statements made after the war had all the other reasons, revisionist history was being written by the confederates once the defeat was imminent.
The north would absolutely have made a pre-war deal to let slavery continue in the existing slave states. The long vicious debate in congress had been about the expansion of slavery. The south wanted to maintain the equilibrium and wanted half the new states added to the union to be slave states. The south feared that in the future a non-slave majority could abolish slavery and destroy the base of their wealth and economy. The north wanted slavery confined to existing slave states, maybe they would go for self-determination of a territory knowing that most would go non-slavery. In negotiation terms confinement was their aspirational point but self-determination was their resistance point.
You need to concede a lot of the fighting going on in Africa too.
As for Imperial Japan, the emperor worship was far more than a sales technique. The leadership were true believers. The god status of their emperor, their head of state, made all other heads of state vastly inferior, all other peoples vastly inferior, the wishes of all others vastly inferior. Imperial Japan's "superiority" was firmly based in their religion, it inspired their "divine destiny" to rule vast parts of Asia.
As for Naziism, it manifested religious overtones and included efforts to create an alternative religious experience for the people that predated the start of the war. Early on they absolutely recognized the power of religion and were creating an alternative one to displace christianity. It was far more than a simple method of selling the war. Its religious-like tenets, mythologies, religious knights were also part of their belief in their "superiority", in their "destiny" to rule Europe. It really was a "religion", not an established one, an emerging one and thankfully a failed one.
And now that you inspired further thought we have the communist states of Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's Communist China. Here too we have a religious-like activity, a worship of the state. Again, not a sales method but a fervent belief system. I suppose you could counter with all sort of euphemisms regarding Stalin's and Mao's states but at its heart we will also find a worship of the state, a faith based belief system, numerous religious-like behaviors. The newness of such belief systems don't really undermine their religious-like nature.
In short you seem to be focused on established religions providing inspiration. I'm focused on a "religious" belief system being behind the motivations for conflict. I think the former is a more valid basis for examining the influence of religion on conflict.
... for practical purposes over 9000 languages is a bit much...
But for historical purposes it makes sense. Shouldn't we be digitizing as much of antiquity and vanishing cultures/languages as possible. Note that its a pretty bad time for the physical preservation of antiquities in the cradle of civilization right now.
It would be helpful to academics to have such languages in a textual format not merely an image format.
Which religions gave us WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Korean war, and the Opium Wars again?
Monarchism (+Communism in Russia), Fascism+Capitalism+Communism, Communism+Capitalism, Communism+Capitalism, Communism+Capitalism, Merchantilism. You forgot: all the current Middle East wars (Fascism+Capitalism), all the current African wars (Tribalism+Communism+Capitalism), and all the many single-country revolutions of the 20th century (mostly Communism, with a few Fascism and Capitalism thrown into).
You almost had a point until you suggested that current wars in the middle east and africa don't have a major religious component. Then you lost credibility. Then I started to rethink the earlier ones and began to note that religion existed their too. For example the Nazis in-fact were trying to create an alternative religion with Naziism, complete with its own tenants of faith, saints, mythologies, etc. Imperial Japan's military justified everything done as service to the living-god emperor. So yeah, religion has helped give us many of the wars you claim otherwise.
"Have the actions of Snowden, and, apparently, the use of weak encryption, made the world less safe?"
Why is all the blame heaped on Snowden? What about "the actions of the NSA"? Running a massive illegal spying operation on the American people, lying about it in sworn congressional testimony, and having no effective confidential channel for whistleblowers, they deserve far more blame for this than Snowden does.
Why the blame? Apparently incompetence. Why was he putting an archive out there that included legitimate operations and agents, why not confine his archive to docs exposing the domestic mass surveillance programs? He overshared.
IMO yes, it was worth it. Having secret programs authorised by secret laws and secret alliances to reduce or remove the privacy of the population as a whole for some geopolitical goal is not something that should happen in democratic countries.
Actually there is a much more important 3rd question. Was it necessary to do a mass dump of NSA files that went far beyond mass domestic surveillance in order to bring that mass surveillance to the attention of the people?
The answer is a definitive NO. Snowden overshared. He may have inadvertently harmed legitimate intelligence programs and agents. He should have pruned his dump and kept it on topic.
Android is not Linux based. It is Linux hosted. Android is effectively another operating system, an Android developer or user does not see Linux at all. In theory Linux could be replaced by BSD and users and nearly all developers would not notice or care. As for the few developers doing native code, many are making Posix calls, not anything Linux specific, so many of these would not care either.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely if we have the technology to turn a dead worl into a living one, we must have the technology to properly maintain an already living one.
Well yeah, the earth is 97% terraformed, we just need to get it a few degrees cooler. :-)
We can't have a technological solution to global warming, we can't have climate engineering, that doesn't forward the political agendas of centralization of authority and redistribution of wealth. Only political/social solutions to global warming are acceptable. We can't just keep using science and engineering to escape malthusian(-like) catastrophes.
Wow, saying the confederate flag means slavery, hatred, bigotry and treason ... Some people say the flag means that, some people say it means states rights, who knows.
Anyone who read the various southern state's secession documents know. Secession and the creation of the confederacy was absolutely and unambiguous about defending the institution of slavery. Its their words written at the time, that's how we know.
But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union?
The resurgence of the confederate flag in the 1960s was as a symbol of opposition to the civil rights movement, a symbol of the support for segregation. So at best it drops slavery and still represents hatred and bigotry even in its modern incarnation.
Maybe they just want to stand for a weaker Federal government, something many people support today.
And their are many other flags to choose from, flags without the baggage of slavery, racism and bigotry. Pick any of the numerous revolutionary war era flags being used for such purposes. People who choose the confederate flag are choosing to be associated with that baggage.
Maybe the reason they fly the flag is to respect their ancestors who fought and died for what they believe in.
While individual confederate soldiers had a wide range of beliefs and opinions one can not evade the simple fact that they volunteered for an army that was created to defend a government that was itself created to defend the institution of slavery. That army existed to by force of arms enact the government's defense of slavery. The flag inherently represents this army and slavery's defense. Its a poor choice to represent a soldier who did not believe in slavery, its a good fit for one who did believe in slavery.
Would you ask someone to take down the original U.S. flag that so heavily fought for their rights and owned slaves?
The U.S. government was create for reasons other than slavery but grudgingly accepted slavery as a concession necessary to form the government in the first place. A concession believed not set in stone but one to be revisited in the future, and one which in fact was revisited over and over again in the legislature. This is quite different than the confederate government that was created to defend the institution of slavery.
My point is, people are afraid of a flag that is being flown for many reasons.
My point is that there are deniers of history and that their opinions can be discarded. The confederate flag was created in the defense of slavery, it was resurrected in the defense of segregation.
The civil war is over and the south lost. I wasn't around 150 years ago, so I'll reserve judgement on what it was over.
You can however read the secession documents written by southern leaders 150 years ago where they clearly and unambiguously state that they are acting in the defense of the institution of slavery.
But if someone feels it simply represents their heritage, then so be it.
Well if their heritage is defense of the institution of slavery so be it. The flag of an army dedicated to the defense of a government that is dedicated to the defense of slavery is an army dedicated to the defense of slavery. Any other meaning is delusional. While individual confederate soldiers may have had a wide variety of motivations and beliefs their army and their government had a clear motivation, the defense of slavery
The British flag is also part of that seal. Shouldn't it be removed too?
The American Revolution was about political differences. Those can be reconciled. When a war is about the defense of slavery there is no reconciliation with the pro-slavery argument.
It's supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to be a racist ass, then so be it.
No problem. The debate is merely about rebranding a symbol of the defense of slavery as something else. You can't even argue that its modern meaning has evolved. It didn't begin flying all over government grounds until the 1960s as a symbol of segregationist opposition to civil rights.
Perhaps failing to recognize that the battle flag represents a defense of slavery by force of arms has something to do with it. When the national government is inherently about the defense of the institution of slavery, their words in their secession documents, then the army of that government is also inherently about the defense of the institution of slavery. The thoughts and opinions of an individual soldier does not change these facts.
This flag is a poor choice to remember the soldier by, assuming of course that the soldier did not believe in perpetuating slavery.
The national flag of the Confederate States does means secession and slavery, but that's not the flag we're talking about ... The flag we're talking about was created to boost morale of the soldiers, and was only for use in battle.
No. The confederate national flag was too similar to the US flag. On the battlefield units were being misidentified as friend or foe. So a confederate battle flag was created motivated by the need to a distinctive differentiated look compared to the US flag.
It was not a political flag ... it was referred to as "the soldiers' flag."
OK. The confederate national flag represents a government that was created to defend the institution of slavery. Their words in their secession declarations proves this. So the confederate battle flag only represents those who fought to defend a government dedicated to the defense of slavery. Any non-slavery motivations an individual soldier may have had does not change the fact that he ultimately fought to defend slavery. The confederate battle flag is inherently a symbol of the defense of slavery by force of arms.
Had this same conversation with my wife. You can no longer buy a Confederate Flag at Wal-Mart, but you can still buy guns.
You know who was a big advocate of gun rights in the south when confederate flags were being resurrected during the 1960s civil rights era? Southern blacks.
Besides blacks, you know what another big market for guns is? Non-racist whites.
Nobody is outlawing anything. This is an example of a business choosing not to publish something.
Yes but is there any discretion applied or is it a complete ban? Declining to publish a racing game with a car with a big confederate flag on it is one thing. Declining to publish a military strategy game that uses a historical setting like Gettysburg where Confederate troops on the field of battle are carrying a Confederate flag is something else.
In other words is there any consideration for historical context and historically accurate use?
From an American perspective, the Texas state flag is a rebel flag too; culturally speaking that is.
The Texas state flag predates the Confederacy. The Confederacy was created to defend the institution of slavery, the Confederate flag represents that defense of the institution of slavery. The Texas flag does not inherently represent such a defense of slavery, like many other Southern state flags, where the people of the state misguidedly decided to defend the Confederate government.
Of course I am referring to the state flags of old, not those modern state flags that embed the confederate flag.
You know, from a British perspective, the US flag is a rebel flag as well. Just sayin.
True. I doubt it flies above any government buildings in the United Kingdom ...
The US flag flew in the United Kingdom during WW2 in the camps and on the bases of US soldiers, sailors and airmen.
See, when one has a war over a political disagreement an amicable reconciliation is possible. Unlike when a war is fought over the defense of the institution of slavery.
To give you my best sound bites on the subject: The Civil War was fought over secession. Secession was about slavery. The Civil War became more about slavery, but a lot of that was diplomatic. The Emancipation Proclamation, while it freed no slaves at the time, established the war as freedom vs. slavery for diplomatic consumption, ensuring that Britain would not intervene on the Confederate side.
I'll reply with additional sound bites: The Southern leadership decided upon secession and war to defend the institution of slavery. The Southern soldier may have had other reasons in his mind but he ultimately defended a government created to perpetuate slavery. Wars are often declared for one reason but sold to the public for entirely different reasons because of public disinterest in the actual reason.
Slavery was an economic necessity due to trade restrictions imposed on Southern crops
Trade was not restricted on Southern crops. Trade was restricted on finished goods (textiles) coming from England that were made of southern cotton. As we saw post-war the South was perfectly capable of creating its own textile mills and producing finished goods itself. Slavery was not an economic necessity, it was a convenience for the wealthy. Plus the North recognized this ugly fact and was willing to allow slavery to continue if existing slave states.
The North was only letting new states in as 'free' states, to curtail the power of the South.
No, to limit (and eventually abolish) the abomination of slavery. How would a free Southern state curtail the power of the South? There were regions of the South where there wasn't much slavery. Unless of course you are saying that the power of the South was not a cultural philosophical power but rather an economic power based primarily on slavery.
Face it, secession was all about slavery. The southern leadership's wealth and power was slave based. Their words in their secession documents state that defense of the institution of slavery was a primary cause for secession. Their words at the time of secession. How does it not get any clearer than that?
No, your modern southern ideology is bullshit. Read what your southern leaders wrote in their secession documents, the defense of the institution of slavery is their primary cause for secession and war. Its their own friggin words at the time they seceded.
The southern leadership's wealth and power was based on slavery. Their creation, the confederate government, was brought into existence to defend the institution of slavery. The fact that Johnny Reb didn't have slavery on his mind when he signed up does not change this fact. Regardless of what was in his head he fought to defend a government that existed to defend slavery. Johnny Reb didn't vote for secession and slavery, he didn't start the war, he just fought it. The modern southern ideology that focuses on Johnny Reb's thoughts is revisionist bullshit, a denial of the truth of behind southern leadership and behind the confederate government.
The Civil War was about states rights and economic power. It was about how much power the federal government could wield against the states. It was about the industrialization of the northern states competing with slave labor economy in the south. It was about money and the slavery issue was the perfect camouflage because it provided the emotional response needed to generate support for the war in both the north and the south.
You are right it was about money. Your analysis is fatally flawed though. In the North slavery was a sort of camouflage, the North was willing to allow it to persist in existing slave states, the Emancipation Proclamation was only valid in rebel held territory, characterizing the war as about slavery was a method to keep the British from aiding the Confederates.
However in the South while it was about money too it is inescapable that this money and the power it provided was derived from the institution of slavery. So in the South the war was absolutely about slavery, secession necessary because non-slave states would eventually outnumber slave states. Most important of all the secession documents all cite defense of the institution of slavery as a primary cause for war. The Southern politicians who voted for war put it in writing when they had all the power. Don't let the fact that many ordinary Southern workers and farmers would not be willing to fight to defend slavery fool you. Secession occurred and war was declared by the Southern elites whose wealth was derived from slavery. Their creation, the confederate government, was therefore absolutely about the defense of the institution of slavery. What was in a confederate soldier's mind does not change this. In the south the camouflage is the non-slavery motivations for war. A soldiers loyalty to his state the camouflage for the defense of slavery.
You must live in a Northern State, Down south our history books tell a different story.
Yes, your Southern history books ignore all the state secession documents that clearly state the preservation of the institution of slavery as a main cause for war. They ignore the fact that the decision makers, the 1%, decided to vote for war and to initiate war to defend their source of wealth and power, slavery. Instead your history books like to focus on the cover stories that the 1% used to sell the war to the 99% with. It doesn't matter if great-great-great-grandpappy didn't personally fight to protect slavery in his own mind, he in fact did so by defending the confederacy which as a government was inherently about the preservation of slavery.
You may want to read up on the subject. The Civil was did not start because of slavery and was not because of slavery.
It is you who need to read up, for example read what was written at the time of secession. Secession declaration after secession declaration cites the institution of slavery of the primary cause.
After the was the great coverup began in the south, the rebrand the war as something else. In particular to rebrand the war in terms of some of the sales pitches the 1% used to recruit the 99% for the army. The fact remains that the 1% made the decision to go to war and that decision was made to defend the basic of the wealth and power, slavery. What the 99% thought about why they were fighting does not change this fact, does not change why the war was started. If the war was started over slavery then the 99% fought to defense slavery, period, what thoughts they had otherwise was just the sales pitch made by the 1%. Image that, a war fought for one reason but sold to the public for different reasons.
This is revisionist history. The North won so obviously they twisted the truth in the history books to make the Southern states out to be demons. Of course they would. MOST southerners DID NOT own slaves during that time. Yet we all went to war. Congress made a series of aggressive moves that pushed the southern states into a war.
No, the revisionist history is from the south. At the time of secession, one secession declaration after another repeatedly cited slavery. The "aggression" was the north wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states with the goal of adding non-slave states to the union and eventually voting in abolition. That was the confederate nightmare, well the nightmare of the confederate 1%. Its this confederate 1% whose wealth and power was slave based that made the decision to go to war, who wrote those declarations.
The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. So the 1% had to sell the war to the 99% using different arguments. Imagine that, a war waged for one reason but sold to the public for other reasons. So while some confederate soldiers may not have been willing to fight for slavery itself, they in fact did so because that was the absolute cause behind the war, why the 1% voted for war.
The confederate soldiers were the pawns of the confederate politicians. Pawns that defended their "betters" economic interests, slavery. Yes, this truth hurts. Hence the revisionism, hence the focus on great-great-great-grandpappy's love for his state to rebrand a symbol of the defense of slavery as a symbol of heritage.
No. It was absolutely about slavery. The documents and statements written at the time of secession were all about slavery. The statements made after the war had all the other reasons, revisionist history was being written by the confederates once the defeat was imminent.
The north would absolutely have made a pre-war deal to let slavery continue in the existing slave states. The long vicious debate in congress had been about the expansion of slavery. The south wanted to maintain the equilibrium and wanted half the new states added to the union to be slave states. The south feared that in the future a non-slave majority could abolish slavery and destroy the base of their wealth and economy. The north wanted slavery confined to existing slave states, maybe they would go for self-determination of a territory knowing that most would go non-slavery. In negotiation terms confinement was their aspirational point but self-determination was their resistance point.
Ecuador didn't give permission to the Swedish delegation to enter their embassy.
Fine. Assange stands on embassy grounds while the investigators stand outside embassy grounds and they talk.
Hasn't Assange done so with journalists?
You need to concede a lot of the fighting going on in Africa too.
As for Imperial Japan, the emperor worship was far more than a sales technique. The leadership were true believers. The god status of their emperor, their head of state, made all other heads of state vastly inferior, all other peoples vastly inferior, the wishes of all others vastly inferior. Imperial Japan's "superiority" was firmly based in their religion, it inspired their "divine destiny" to rule vast parts of Asia.
As for Naziism, it manifested religious overtones and included efforts to create an alternative religious experience for the people that predated the start of the war. Early on they absolutely recognized the power of religion and were creating an alternative one to displace christianity. It was far more than a simple method of selling the war. Its religious-like tenets, mythologies, religious knights were also part of their belief in their "superiority", in their "destiny" to rule Europe. It really was a "religion", not an established one, an emerging one and thankfully a failed one.
And now that you inspired further thought we have the communist states of Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's Communist China. Here too we have a religious-like activity, a worship of the state. Again, not a sales method but a fervent belief system. I suppose you could counter with all sort of euphemisms regarding Stalin's and Mao's states but at its heart we will also find a worship of the state, a faith based belief system, numerous religious-like behaviors. The newness of such belief systems don't really undermine their religious-like nature.
In short you seem to be focused on established religions providing inspiration. I'm focused on a "religious" belief system being behind the motivations for conflict. I think the former is a more valid basis for examining the influence of religion on conflict.
... for practical purposes over 9000 languages is a bit much ...
But for historical purposes it makes sense. Shouldn't we be digitizing as much of antiquity and vanishing cultures/languages as possible. Note that its a pretty bad time for the physical preservation of antiquities in the cradle of civilization right now.
It would be helpful to academics to have such languages in a textual format not merely an image format.
Which religions gave us WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the Cold War, the Korean war, and the Opium Wars again?
Monarchism (+Communism in Russia), Fascism+Capitalism+Communism, Communism+Capitalism, Communism+Capitalism, Communism+Capitalism, Merchantilism. You forgot: all the current Middle East wars (Fascism+Capitalism), all the current African wars (Tribalism+Communism+Capitalism), and all the many single-country revolutions of the 20th century (mostly Communism, with a few Fascism and Capitalism thrown into).
You almost had a point until you suggested that current wars in the middle east and africa don't have a major religious component. Then you lost credibility. Then I started to rethink the earlier ones and began to note that religion existed their too. For example the Nazis in-fact were trying to create an alternative religion with Naziism, complete with its own tenants of faith, saints, mythologies, etc. Imperial Japan's military justified everything done as service to the living-god emperor. So yeah, religion has helped give us many of the wars you claim otherwise.
"Have the actions of Snowden, and, apparently, the use of weak encryption, made the world less safe?"
Why is all the blame heaped on Snowden? What about "the actions of the NSA"? Running a massive illegal spying operation on the American people, lying about it in sworn congressional testimony, and having no effective confidential channel for whistleblowers, they deserve far more blame for this than Snowden does.
Why the blame? Apparently incompetence. Why was he putting an archive out there that included legitimate operations and agents, why not confine his archive to docs exposing the domestic mass surveillance programs? He overshared.
IMO yes, it was worth it. Having secret programs authorised by secret laws and secret alliances to reduce or remove the privacy of the population as a whole for some geopolitical goal is not something that should happen in democratic countries.
Actually there is a much more important 3rd question. Was it necessary to do a mass dump of NSA files that went far beyond mass domestic surveillance in order to bring that mass surveillance to the attention of the people?
The answer is a definitive NO. Snowden overshared. He may have inadvertently harmed legitimate intelligence programs and agents. He should have pruned his dump and kept it on topic.
Android is not Linux based. It is Linux hosted. Android is effectively another operating system, an Android developer or user does not see Linux at all. In theory Linux could be replaced by BSD and users and nearly all developers would not notice or care. As for the few developers doing native code, many are making Posix calls, not anything Linux specific, so many of these would not care either.