if there's anyone less qualified to speak on poetry, it's your average/.er.
In this case I'd say the average American, if they knew the concept of haiku poetry, has heard of the 5-7-5 form. I have known many people in my life from different circles that thought the same. It seems ironic that instead of us being incorrect in the number or layout of haiku (it's five-eight-five or always two lines), it turns out the rule isn't even a set rule (two or three lines, some number of syllables that fit in one breath).
I had never heard of the seasonal notion before, but I saw it mentioned in another comment. I like writing Haiku; I'm a coder; I like the symmetry. My friend gave me dirty refrigerator magnets as a joke gift. It turns out you can make a lot of haiku with those things. At least I'm sticking to a "theme".;)
What I'm hearing is: I'm a whiny jackass who is too lazy and stupid to multiply or add without a calculator.
As a rough cut, this quarter at UCLA is costing me about $4000. As I'm taking four classes, this course costs me $1000. I'm quite happy to do arithmetic by hand (as I stated in my post) on my own time, but I think it's a waste of my money to pay $1000 to be tested on skills I taught myself in kindergarten, especially when that means I forfeit being tested on the material this course is purported to teach.
For example, say you took a course on C++ programming. Would you be happy if one-quarter of your projects/exams was wasted by testing your touch-typing skills? If the instructor decided to bar the use of make and shell scripts, forcing you to type compiler commands directly into the shell, might you then become a "whiny jackass"?
Apply a little thought and reason before you whip out a reply next time.
"why waste precious use of mental resources by making students multiply and divide instead of handing them over calculaters ?"
We'd be nuts as a society not to teach our children basic arithmetic, so that's not a good example. I am currently taking a higher algrebra class (rings, fields, primes, error/crypto codes, etc), and since everyone has calculators that can contain formulas, you can't use them on exams. For calculus classes, the few calculations you do are made to be simple: formulas with sin x and cos x will be evaluated at pi/2.
But for my class, some of the exam problems are troublesome arithmetically and prone to simple errors. When you have to quickly do twenty multiply-and-add operations of three digit numbers, it's easy to make a mistake. But more I find that being out of practice with it flusters me. I could do this in seconds with no errors on a decent calculator, but not having one takes away time that could be used to test knowledge of the actual class material.
More than that though, basic math is handy in places where you wouldn't normally have a calculator: grocery store, ATM, car, etc. The periodic table, on the other hand, isn't something you suddenly have a need for, say, while filling up your gas tank. Do you know the atomic weight of oxygen? Of course, the concept and use of the table itself should still be taught, but skip memorizing the details.
That being said, I disagree with the original point that the site is pointless. Any art is a contribution to the whole -- even this site, which doesn't even use real haikus (5-7-5) in the first place.
when writing haiku
there's just one thing you must do
that's five, seven, five
But I haven't found one haiku on the website.:( Is there a joke I'm not getting? At first I thought the varrying syllables were an encoding of orbital numbers, weights, or something as a mnemonic, but I didn't see a pattern.
Good points, but I wouldn't call that "unusable" but rather "not very useful" if I were writing a review. "Unusable" means you cannot use it at all to me, meaning it won't even turn on. But yes, it would be nice if you could do more with the cover closed. Most other PDAs, however, are truly "unusable" when their covers are closed because the cover is opaque.
Regarding switching datebook views, I'm pretty sure hitting the button multiple times still cycles through the views you've closen as "bottom buttuns" or whatever it's called in the preferences.
I just got the Treo 90 and am happy for what I need and being price-constrained. Check it out.
I didn't do much research this time (played with a bunch at Circuit City and have owned Palms before). However, in looking for grafitti software for it (it has a keyboard and no grafitti), I read a review of it on about.com. It was pretty much right-on with only one exception: the reviewer said you can't use it with the cover closed, but that's not true.
Regardless, I think we are trying to say the same thing with different words.
That's the problem with terms like socialism and communism that have such wide-ranging interpretations and uses. What most people refer to as socialsm -- state-owned and controled resources and methods of production -- others call state-socialism.
Socialism to them is when the tools of production are owned by the people who actually use them. For example, in a typical factory everyone -- workers, managers, office personnel, janitors -- would share ownership and control of the factory as a syndicate. Having the best knowledge of how to run a factory, they would manage its utilization as well as exist in a larger market of other syndicates, all working together.
The state would exist on a much more limited scale, performing basic civic services such as courts and law enforcement. It would not be involved in the market at all. This has not existed in a large society to my knowledge. That's why most people don't associate it with "socialism." Rather, they think of the various "evil" state-socialist countries throughout history, Germany being the prime example.
In any case, rereading the posts, I would view "attempting to get their distribution monopoly enshrined and enforced by law" to be protecting the capitalist interests, not psuedo-socialist or socialist.
To tie them together, look at the labor struggles at the end of the 19th through the beginning of the 20th centuries. The state governments were protecting corporate profits by sending in militia and federal troops to violently break strikes (killing women and children in tents during a night attack on a striker encampment). The socialist movement grew out of this period of severe state oppression. They certainly weren't asking for the government to take control of production.
Along come World Wars I and II and socialism becomes synonymous with Nazi Germany and is "no better than communism" which is subjected to the same cultural effects.
[Note: I'm exactly at this period in A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present, so it's on my mind.:) ]
[T]hey are pursuing a sort of pseudo-socialist agenda by attempting to get their distribution monopoly enshrined and enforced by law.
What do "monopoly" and "enforced by law" have to do with socialism? Under socialism, the people that work a resource commonly own it. For example, mine workers would collectively own a mine and its equipment. If they discovered a new huge gold vein, they'd all gain from it.
There's nothing socialist or psuedo-socialist about it. In fact, it's rather anti-socialist and elitist.
O.J. was tried in criminal and then civil court. That does not constitue double-jeopardy as that only applies to the criminal courts. As well, criminal cases require "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases require less, only "a preponderance of the evidence" (meaning better than 50% likelihood that they are guilty).
Thus, O.J. was found innocent in the criminal case and guilty in the civil one.
Disney [...] goes around telling lawmakers that unless "Steamboat Willy" always has copy protection, we're going to start seeing Mickey in porno movies.
And why should that be such a problem? Is it possible that kids will be confused when Mickey starts boinking Minnie? If so, my question is not "Why was Mickey allowed to do porn?" but rather "Why is some kid watching porn?"!
Note I'm not saying the parent post agreed with the argument. I'm merely addressing the argument Disney might put forth. Mickey's innocent image (whatever) might be tarnished, but only in the eyes of the people that saw the porno movie. And should Disney really be concerned about how those people view Mickey's innocence?
No, there is no such thing as the Easter Bunny, but anarchy does indeed exist. And no, Somalia has nothing like anarchy right now -- chaos perhaps, but not anarchy. The feudal system is not anarchy either, for that entails giving up your power to a ruler. Like I said, if you don't know what anarchy means, go read up on it.
Of course, if there was no law,
No state. No laws. Yet this does not mean there are not cultural codes of conduct. There's no law against picking your nose, but most people are polite enough to avoid doing it in public. Why aren't there nose-picking epidemics across the country without a law?
I would be busy killing anarchists
You'd be busy being dead, as people would be well prepared to protect themselves from people like you. Are you saying that the threat of prison is the only thing keeping you from killing people right now? If so, your parents failed and should not have attempted raising children.
And they would defend to the death my right to kill them.
Again, no. You have the right to free will. I have the right to life. If you try to kill me, I will not summon a state power to prosecute you after I am dead. Instead, I will use self defense to protect myself, my family, and my community.
"Mob rule" would be the definition of "Democracy". This is why I tend to prefer "Constitutional Democracies".
Maybe on your planet, but on Earth democracy means "rule by the people as a whole" while mob rule means "rule by mobs." You should note that there exist no state democracies in the world. The US is a constitutional republic. The capitaled class have always ensured that only an elite few hold the power to legislate and execute.
Take for example the Hollings bill. Do you believe that that bill in any way represents the "will of the people"? Did your mom one day call her representative and say, "We really need some way to protect movies from the internet"? No, instead a few people with a lot of capital wrote up some legislation for Hollings to push through Congress to protect their narrow interests.
[R]eligious competition was in Jeruselam way before the U.S. was even a country.
True indeed, however . . .
The US and UK did not start anything that was not there already.
There were several hundred thousand Jews and a similar number of Arabs living in Palestine (though there was no country by that name -- just a region). They certainly weren't best buddies, but they had an integrated political and economic society. For the most part, they were living peacably together due to the small population density.
Then, WW2 exploded, and the US/UK closed their borders to Jews that wanted to flee the terror. This was a very cold, calculated move, sadly. Instead, millions of Jews were sent to the Middle East and told that their new homeland -- Greater Israel -- would be created from Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. This was the thanks the Arabs received for helping against Germany.
But we're not arguing.:) My point was not that we created the tool of religious competition but merely that we have used it by fanning the flames for control of oil. Either way, it's pretty disgusting.
I wish we would find an alternative to oil.
Ah, but we already have! Unfortunately, hemp is kept illegal by the very same oil interests. The last thing they want is an alternative to oil. Hemp is not psychoactive. Hemp has been cultivated across the globe for 5,000 years. Not only can it be made into biodiesel but many other petroleum-based products as well.
More importantly, we won't run out of hemp in 20, 50, or 100 years (pick one), and it doesn't increase CO2 in the atmosphere since the plant takes CO2 out while it grows.
The goal is cheap oil for America. The tool is religious competition. You see, the US couldn't care less who controls Jeruselam or Greater Israel or the entire Middle East, as long as it has access to cheap oil and the profits it generates. In order to control the access, it has to keep the locals from gaining control of it themselves. The easiest way to do that is to keep them fighting against each other.
The US and UK chose Palestine as the new home for fleeing Jews (after closing their own borders during the war) for one reason: they knew it would start a conflict in the entire region. The added bonus is that it's basically a military outpost for the US. This was classic divide and conquer.
If the Middle East nations were to set aside their differences over religion and power and work together, they could easily become leading economic powers. Of course, they'd have the US working against them at every turn to maintain control. Not towing the political line? Look for a coup attempt in a few months.
[N]ot voting is like looking the other way when someone is being wronged.
For me, not voting is saying, "Since giving my power to someone else to rule over me is at its very base unethical, I choose not to participate in choosing my ruler." If there was an option on the ballot for "Dissolve the government entirely," I'd choose that.
Picture this. You're walking along when you come across a guy holding a gun. He's got two prisoners chained to a wall and says you get to pick which one he kills. You tell him to kill neither prisoner, but he insists that he must kill one or the other. So, which do you choose? Choosing one makes you partially complicit. Not choosing has no effect, but at least you aren't involved.
It may seem like splitting hairs or apathy, but I see it differently. Going down to the polls and marking off "none of the above" will have zero effect. If 50 million people did it at the next election, whomever got the one actual vote would be elected. I take political action by speaking with people and educating them about their choices. It may not overturn the system tomorrow, but it will do it sooner than the other option.
I know how you feel. It all comes down to priorities, and I've had to continually adjust mine. I'd really like to read Cryptonomicron, but that was put on the back burner. It's been there since it came out, too.
I do highly recommend this book simply because it covers the full time range of US history. The chapters cover various logical periods, and you could skip those that don't interest you, I'm sure. It's not too big, and I've been blazing through it since I got it for Christmas.
If a bunch of people are out to get the U.S., then why are they doing it? . . . are we doing something wrong?
The short version is that with WW2 the US swapped places with the UK. The US provoked Japan into attacking it, as 80% of Americans didn't want to enter the war, because it saw that Japan was quickly building its own empire. Industrialization had been going strong in the US for a century, and the capitalists needed markets in which to sell products. The US came out of the war with a built-up industrial base, and an excuse to build military bases throughout the globe. Europe was decimated, leaving America the world's only superpower.
Since that time, we've worked to expand our economic sphere, as empires are wont to do, throughout Asia and South America. Through the CIA, the US has sponsored and/or outright led several military coups: Chile, Indonesia, Guatemala, Panama, and many more. The latest -- failed! -- attempt was Venezuela this past April.
Why would the US do this? Do Americans hate other people? Of course not. That assumes that Americans make choices which affect the US's foreign policy. I certainly wasn't asked about whether or not I wanted to overthrow the overwhelmingly democratically-elected president of Venezuela. But Venezuela controls a lot of oil, and capital needs oil (resources). So capital made that choice for me. Can you think of another country that controls a lot of oil? Hint: it starts with "I" and ends in "raq."
The fairy tale that terrorists hate all of our freedoms is so amazingly idiotic, I'm shocked that anyone buys into it. Yes, that's a sad statement on our citizens. Do you really think bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere thinking, "Stupid Americans! Why can't I have my MTV?! I'm so jealous." No, he's pissed because the US has military bases in what he believes to be the holy land of all Muslim people (over a billion world-wide). Whether or not we stop supporting Israel (his other beef), I think we at the very least should pull out of Saudi Arabia just to appease one sixth of the world's population. That's just common sense if not common courtesy.
It's easy to get cynical or give up when you look upon the world stage and see what the US does to other countries and peoples (1.5 million dead in Iraq due to economic sanctions). I just hope that by talking with others we can wake up enough people to take back control of the country. How? I wish I knew, but I'm convinced it's not going to happen through the ballot box.
You can go read any number of political essays and books yourself, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that our touted two-party system is not really a one-party system: the capital party. No, I'm not socialist or communist, though those systems haven't really been tried in the real world. I've been reading more about anarchy* and know that, once we stop hating each other for silly reasons, it's the way to go. The only question is can we get there?
Me? I'm actually hopeful.
* If you think Anarchy means mob rule or no order, you don't understand anarchy. Neither did I. Start skimming the FAQ, but the basic tenant is that you are a sovereign individual and should not be giving up your power to anyone.
Yes, I believe the proper scientific term is "population culling" and not "control." I am also in favor of using practical knowledge and common sense in managing the growth (or decline) of the human population, but not by killing living people thank-you-very-much. Nor by imposing my viewpoint on others, but let's not get into that debate as this thread is about weather.
Having said that, I don't believe that if we figure out a way to nudge hurricanes we should just blindly use it. What if hurricanes serve a very important meteorological purpose that we don't yet understand. If we begin mucking about with weather patterns, we invite rather drastic effects later on. There's no gaurantee -- just like everything else in life -- but I'd rather we spend several decades studying the effects of minor projects rather than have every state and world power get involved.
No, I'm far from being a luddite or chicken little. I'm only saying we should be cautious when attempting something so vast. If everyone started increasing the rain that falls in their state, from where does that excess water come? Do massive droughts appear elsewhere? After awhile perhaps only the capital-rich nations can afford rain as everyone competes to cause more rainfall. Just as the developing nations don't have as much access to world oil, will they soon not have access to water? Scary.
I absolutely, totally agree with the parent that trash should be protected by the 4th amendment (score 0, check parent link). Look at it this way: if I didn't care about my trash, I'd throw it into the street for people to go through. But I don't do that. Instead, I pay the city to securely take it from my house to a land fill where it will be "disappeared" in a sense.
I'm not saying, "This is all worthless, so it's up for grabs." I'm saying, "This is all mine, and I'm paying the city to dispose of it -- not analyze it." To me, discarding something in my trash can should be treated the same as keeping it in my house. I am required to put my trash can on the curb -- on public property -- not so it will be public property itself but so it's easier for the trash collectors to get to it.
Sure, if I throw my bomb-making equipment into the street, come arrest me. Of course, seeing it in the street would be your probable cause for a search warrent. You should require probable cause and a search warrent to go through my trash.
"We're just trolling for crooks" is not probable cause.
For the same reason, electromagnetic radiation coming from my house is still my property and covered by privacy even though I didn't shield my house. That puts an unreasonable burden on me in order to obtain my rights. But you should not be required to do jack shit to obtain your rights; that's what a right means.
And of course this is the one time it bites me in the a$$. The post you thought was my post's parent was actually the grandparent, probably because you're browsing at +2 or higher like me. Your summary is just how I read it, and I agree that using the old system is a great idea, to wit:
So, this scheme takes the old underused infrastructure and gives it new life with benefits for the user.
I actually replied to this:
If everyone had a cell phone with an appropriate modem for their device, there'd be no need for WiFi hostspots.
It seems using hotspots is a better solution all-around than using cell modems, but again I'm not in the business.
True, the society seems to be a little more caring about providing national services, namely health care. Definite kudos for that.
In the U.S., corporations are beholden to the shareholders, the owners. If they believe the board acted in a way to hurt profits, they can take action (replacing or even suing the board). The Securities Exchange Commission is in charge of policing public corporations in this regard and others. Is there no similar concept in Canada? Or is it simply less stringent?
P.S. IANAL, nor do I study the stock market. This is my (hopefully correct) limited understanding.
First, cell phone modems have very limited bandwidth. This is fine for downloading ring tones and getting maps, but would be less acceptable for surfing on a notebook. Also, my guess (I'm not in the telecom business) is that the cell phone network is more limited and valuable than the POTS lines, and the POTS lines are going unused. So, this scheme takes the old underused infrastructure and gives it new life with benefits for the user.
Additionally, I'd rather not have to whip out my cell phone and an extra modem and cable to look up an address on my Palm. In fact, I'd like to see them put hotspots on the actual buses and commuter trains. Can you imagine how many people would start commuting if they could play BF1942 on the way to/from work?
While you're at it, tack on an extra train car that houses a bar and a bunch of networked consoles or PCs. People would be riding past their stop on purpose!
I'd love to convert to something other than capitalism, but as long as that's the society we live in (I'm in the U.S., but Canada from what I understand is much like the U.S. economically), I can't imagine expecting altruism from a for-profit corporation.
I'm not saying I like it, and I'm not trolling. If the parent post had been funny or sarcastic it would warrant no response other than a good laugh. But the poster seems to believe that any other typical for-profit corporation would provide this service for free and that Ma Bell is somehow an aberration. Sorry to burst your bubble, but when corporations are driven by profit for their shareholders, altruism becomes a breach of contract if it surpasses minor PR-value donations.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case I'd say the average American, if they knew the concept of haiku poetry, has heard of the 5-7-5 form. I have known many people in my life from different circles that thought the same. It seems ironic that instead of us being incorrect in the number or layout of haiku (it's five-eight-five or always two lines), it turns out the rule isn't even a set rule (two or three lines, some number of syllables that fit in one breath).
I had never heard of the seasonal notion before, but I saw it mentioned in another comment. I like writing Haiku; I'm a coder; I like the symmetry. My friend gave me dirty refrigerator magnets as a joke gift. It turns out you can make a lot of haiku with those things. At least I'm sticking to a "theme". ;)
As a rough cut, this quarter at UCLA is costing me about $4000. As I'm taking four classes, this course costs me $1000. I'm quite happy to do arithmetic by hand (as I stated in my post) on my own time, but I think it's a waste of my money to pay $1000 to be tested on skills I taught myself in kindergarten, especially when that means I forfeit being tested on the material this course is purported to teach.
For example, say you took a course on C++ programming. Would you be happy if one-quarter of your projects/exams was wasted by testing your touch-typing skills? If the instructor decided to bar the use of make and shell scripts, forcing you to type compiler commands directly into the shell, might you then become a "whiny jackass"?
Apply a little thought and reason before you whip out a reply next time.
We'd be nuts as a society not to teach our children basic arithmetic, so that's not a good example. I am currently taking a higher algrebra class (rings, fields, primes, error/crypto codes, etc), and since everyone has calculators that can contain formulas, you can't use them on exams. For calculus classes, the few calculations you do are made to be simple: formulas with sin x and cos x will be evaluated at pi/2.
But for my class, some of the exam problems are troublesome arithmetically and prone to simple errors. When you have to quickly do twenty multiply-and-add operations of three digit numbers, it's easy to make a mistake. But more I find that being out of practice with it flusters me. I could do this in seconds with no errors on a decent calculator, but not having one takes away time that could be used to test knowledge of the actual class material.
More than that though, basic math is handy in places where you wouldn't normally have a calculator: grocery store, ATM, car, etc. The periodic table, on the other hand, isn't something you suddenly have a need for, say, while filling up your gas tank. Do you know the atomic weight of oxygen? Of course, the concept and use of the table itself should still be taught, but skip memorizing the details.
That being said, I disagree with the original point that the site is pointless. Any art is a contribution to the whole -- even this site, which doesn't even use real haikus (5-7-5) in the first place.
there's just one thing you must do
that's five, seven, five
But I haven't found one haiku on the website. :( Is there a joke I'm not getting? At first I thought the varrying syllables were an encoding of orbital numbers, weights, or something as a mnemonic, but I didn't see a pattern.
Regarding switching datebook views, I'm pretty sure hitting the button multiple times still cycles through the views you've closen as "bottom buttuns" or whatever it's called in the preferences.
I didn't do much research this time (played with a bunch at Circuit City and have owned Palms before). However, in looking for grafitti software for it (it has a keyboard and no grafitti), I read a review of it on about.com. It was pretty much right-on with only one exception: the reviewer said you can't use it with the cover closed, but that's not true.
You might want to check their other PDA reviews.
That's the problem with terms like socialism and communism that have such wide-ranging interpretations and uses. What most people refer to as socialsm -- state-owned and controled resources and methods of production -- others call state-socialism.
Socialism to them is when the tools of production are owned by the people who actually use them. For example, in a typical factory everyone -- workers, managers, office personnel, janitors -- would share ownership and control of the factory as a syndicate. Having the best knowledge of how to run a factory, they would manage its utilization as well as exist in a larger market of other syndicates, all working together.
The state would exist on a much more limited scale, performing basic civic services such as courts and law enforcement. It would not be involved in the market at all. This has not existed in a large society to my knowledge. That's why most people don't associate it with "socialism." Rather, they think of the various "evil" state-socialist countries throughout history, Germany being the prime example.
In any case, rereading the posts, I would view "attempting to get their distribution monopoly enshrined and enforced by law" to be protecting the capitalist interests, not psuedo-socialist or socialist.
To tie them together, look at the labor struggles at the end of the 19th through the beginning of the 20th centuries. The state governments were protecting corporate profits by sending in militia and federal troops to violently break strikes (killing women and children in tents during a night attack on a striker encampment). The socialist movement grew out of this period of severe state oppression. They certainly weren't asking for the government to take control of production.
Along come World Wars I and II and socialism becomes synonymous with Nazi Germany and is "no better than communism" which is subjected to the same cultural effects.
[Note: I'm exactly at this period in A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present, so it's on my mind. :) ]
What do "monopoly" and "enforced by law" have to do with socialism? Under socialism, the people that work a resource commonly own it. For example, mine workers would collectively own a mine and its equipment. If they discovered a new huge gold vein, they'd all gain from it.
There's nothing socialist or psuedo-socialist about it. In fact, it's rather anti-socialist and elitist.
Thus, O.J. was found innocent in the criminal case and guilty in the civil one.
And why should that be such a problem? Is it possible that kids will be confused when Mickey starts boinking Minnie? If so, my question is not "Why was Mickey allowed to do porn?" but rather "Why is some kid watching porn?"!
Note I'm not saying the parent post agreed with the argument. I'm merely addressing the argument Disney might put forth. Mickey's innocent image (whatever) might be tarnished, but only in the eyes of the people that saw the porno movie. And should Disney really be concerned about how those people view Mickey's innocence?
No, there is no such thing as the Easter Bunny, but anarchy does indeed exist. And no, Somalia has nothing like anarchy right now -- chaos perhaps, but not anarchy. The feudal system is not anarchy either, for that entails giving up your power to a ruler. Like I said, if you don't know what anarchy means, go read up on it.
No state. No laws. Yet this does not mean there are not cultural codes of conduct. There's no law against picking your nose, but most people are polite enough to avoid doing it in public. Why aren't there nose-picking epidemics across the country without a law?
You'd be busy being dead, as people would be well prepared to protect themselves from people like you. Are you saying that the threat of prison is the only thing keeping you from killing people right now? If so, your parents failed and should not have attempted raising children.
Again, no. You have the right to free will. I have the right to life. If you try to kill me, I will not summon a state power to prosecute you after I am dead. Instead, I will use self defense to protect myself, my family, and my community.
Maybe on your planet, but on Earth democracy means "rule by the people as a whole" while mob rule means "rule by mobs." You should note that there exist no state democracies in the world. The US is a constitutional republic. The capitaled class have always ensured that only an elite few hold the power to legislate and execute.
Take for example the Hollings bill. Do you believe that that bill in any way represents the "will of the people"? Did your mom one day call her representative and say, "We really need some way to protect movies from the internet"? No, instead a few people with a lot of capital wrote up some legislation for Hollings to push through Congress to protect their narrow interests.
True indeed, however . . .
There were several hundred thousand Jews and a similar number of Arabs living in Palestine (though there was no country by that name -- just a region). They certainly weren't best buddies, but they had an integrated political and economic society. For the most part, they were living peacably together due to the small population density.
Then, WW2 exploded, and the US/UK closed their borders to Jews that wanted to flee the terror. This was a very cold, calculated move, sadly. Instead, millions of Jews were sent to the Middle East and told that their new homeland -- Greater Israel -- would be created from Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. This was the thanks the Arabs received for helping against Germany.
But we're not arguing. :) My point was not that we created the tool of religious competition but merely that we have used it by fanning the flames for control of oil. Either way, it's pretty disgusting.
Ah, but we already have! Unfortunately, hemp is kept illegal by the very same oil interests. The last thing they want is an alternative to oil. Hemp is not psychoactive. Hemp has been cultivated across the globe for 5,000 years. Not only can it be made into biodiesel but many other petroleum-based products as well.
More importantly, we won't run out of hemp in 20, 50, or 100 years (pick one), and it doesn't increase CO2 in the atmosphere since the plant takes CO2 out while it grows.
The goal is cheap oil for America. The tool is religious competition. You see, the US couldn't care less who controls Jeruselam or Greater Israel or the entire Middle East, as long as it has access to cheap oil and the profits it generates. In order to control the access, it has to keep the locals from gaining control of it themselves. The easiest way to do that is to keep them fighting against each other.
The US and UK chose Palestine as the new home for fleeing Jews (after closing their own borders during the war) for one reason: they knew it would start a conflict in the entire region. The added bonus is that it's basically a military outpost for the US. This was classic divide and conquer.
If the Middle East nations were to set aside their differences over religion and power and work together, they could easily become leading economic powers. Of course, they'd have the US working against them at every turn to maintain control. Not towing the political line? Look for a coup attempt in a few months.
For me, not voting is saying, "Since giving my power to someone else to rule over me is at its very base unethical, I choose not to participate in choosing my ruler." If there was an option on the ballot for "Dissolve the government entirely," I'd choose that.
Picture this. You're walking along when you come across a guy holding a gun. He's got two prisoners chained to a wall and says you get to pick which one he kills. You tell him to kill neither prisoner, but he insists that he must kill one or the other. So, which do you choose? Choosing one makes you partially complicit. Not choosing has no effect, but at least you aren't involved.
It may seem like splitting hairs or apathy, but I see it differently. Going down to the polls and marking off "none of the above" will have zero effect. If 50 million people did it at the next election, whomever got the one actual vote would be elected. I take political action by speaking with people and educating them about their choices. It may not overturn the system tomorrow, but it will do it sooner than the other option.
I do highly recommend this book simply because it covers the full time range of US history. The chapters cover various logical periods, and you could skip those that don't interest you, I'm sure. It's not too big, and I've been blazing through it since I got it for Christmas.
Good luck!
The short version is that with WW2 the US swapped places with the UK. The US provoked Japan into attacking it, as 80% of Americans didn't want to enter the war, because it saw that Japan was quickly building its own empire. Industrialization had been going strong in the US for a century, and the capitalists needed markets in which to sell products. The US came out of the war with a built-up industrial base, and an excuse to build military bases throughout the globe. Europe was decimated, leaving America the world's only superpower.
Since that time, we've worked to expand our economic sphere, as empires are wont to do, throughout Asia and South America. Through the CIA, the US has sponsored and/or outright led several military coups: Chile, Indonesia, Guatemala, Panama, and many more. The latest -- failed! -- attempt was Venezuela this past April.
Why would the US do this? Do Americans hate other people? Of course not. That assumes that Americans make choices which affect the US's foreign policy. I certainly wasn't asked about whether or not I wanted to overthrow the overwhelmingly democratically-elected president of Venezuela. But Venezuela controls a lot of oil, and capital needs oil (resources). So capital made that choice for me. Can you think of another country that controls a lot of oil? Hint: it starts with "I" and ends in "raq."
The fairy tale that terrorists hate all of our freedoms is so amazingly idiotic, I'm shocked that anyone buys into it. Yes, that's a sad statement on our citizens. Do you really think bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere thinking, "Stupid Americans! Why can't I have my MTV?! I'm so jealous." No, he's pissed because the US has military bases in what he believes to be the holy land of all Muslim people (over a billion world-wide). Whether or not we stop supporting Israel (his other beef), I think we at the very least should pull out of Saudi Arabia just to appease one sixth of the world's population. That's just common sense if not common courtesy.
It's easy to get cynical or give up when you look upon the world stage and see what the US does to other countries and peoples (1.5 million dead in Iraq due to economic sanctions). I just hope that by talking with others we can wake up enough people to take back control of the country. How? I wish I knew, but I'm convinced it's not going to happen through the ballot box.
You can go read any number of political essays and books yourself, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that our touted two-party system is not really a one-party system: the capital party. No, I'm not socialist or communist, though those systems haven't really been tried in the real world. I've been reading more about anarchy* and know that, once we stop hating each other for silly reasons, it's the way to go. The only question is can we get there?
Me? I'm actually hopeful.
* If you think Anarchy means mob rule or no order, you don't understand anarchy. Neither did I. Start skimming the FAQ, but the basic tenant is that you are a sovereign individual and should not be giving up your power to anyone.
P.S. For a good history of the US, I highly recommend A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Preset by Howard Zinn. I'm only up to the Civil War (and the other Civil War), but it's very good so far.
Eugenics is about as useful as ebonics, though I think the latter wins out.
Having said that, I don't believe that if we figure out a way to nudge hurricanes we should just blindly use it. What if hurricanes serve a very important meteorological purpose that we don't yet understand. If we begin mucking about with weather patterns, we invite rather drastic effects later on. There's no gaurantee -- just like everything else in life -- but I'd rather we spend several decades studying the effects of minor projects rather than have every state and world power get involved.
No, I'm far from being a luddite or chicken little. I'm only saying we should be cautious when attempting something so vast. If everyone started increasing the rain that falls in their state, from where does that excess water come? Do massive droughts appear elsewhere? After awhile perhaps only the capital-rich nations can afford rain as everyone competes to cause more rainfall. Just as the developing nations don't have as much access to world oil, will they soon not have access to water? Scary.
I'm not saying, "This is all worthless, so it's up for grabs." I'm saying, "This is all mine, and I'm paying the city to dispose of it -- not analyze it." To me, discarding something in my trash can should be treated the same as keeping it in my house. I am required to put my trash can on the curb -- on public property -- not so it will be public property itself but so it's easier for the trash collectors to get to it.
Sure, if I throw my bomb-making equipment into the street, come arrest me. Of course, seeing it in the street would be your probable cause for a search warrent. You should require probable cause and a search warrent to go through my trash.
"We're just trolling for crooks" is not probable cause.
For the same reason, electromagnetic radiation coming from my house is still my property and covered by privacy even though I didn't shield my house. That puts an unreasonable burden on me in order to obtain my rights. But you should not be required to do jack shit to obtain your rights; that's what a right means.
No worries; I never took it negatively. :)
I actually replied to this:
It seems using hotspots is a better solution all-around than using cell modems, but again I'm not in the business.
In the U.S., corporations are beholden to the shareholders, the owners. If they believe the board acted in a way to hurt profits, they can take action (replacing or even suing the board). The Securities Exchange Commission is in charge of policing public corporations in this regard and others. Is there no similar concept in Canada? Or is it simply less stringent?
P.S. IANAL, nor do I study the stock market. This is my (hopefully correct) limited understanding.
Were you quoting the article or summarizing my post? I'm confused because that's exactly what I said. Or did you reply to the wrong post? :)
Additionally, I'd rather not have to whip out my cell phone and an extra modem and cable to look up an address on my Palm. In fact, I'd like to see them put hotspots on the actual buses and commuter trains. Can you imagine how many people would start commuting if they could play BF1942 on the way to/from work?
While you're at it, tack on an extra train car that houses a bar and a bunch of networked consoles or PCs. People would be riding past their stop on purpose!
I'm not saying I like it, and I'm not trolling. If the parent post had been funny or sarcastic it would warrant no response other than a good laugh. But the poster seems to believe that any other typical for-profit corporation would provide this service for free and that Ma Bell is somehow an aberration. Sorry to burst your bubble, but when corporations are driven by profit for their shareholders, altruism becomes a breach of contract if it surpasses minor PR-value donations.