Ok, but who is lible in France for this sort of thing? Lets say I run Adam Inc, which contracts with Bob's House of Advertising, to make a 30 second commercial spot run on CNN.
Now my commercial claims that my product (the super-duper wizbang thingamajigger) is better than a competing product made by Dave Inc.
Dave Inc sues over this advertisement. Who can they sue? Adam Inc? Bob's House of Advertising, or CNN?
Logicaly the target would be Adam Inc or Bob's House of Advertising or both... it would seem that CNN wouldn't be applicable here.
Similarly I wouldn't expect Google to be held responcible for the adverts they display. Google should be expected to turn over relevant documentation should a civil suit arise but I can't imagine that they should be held liable for someone elses trademark infringement.
I think both sides are so busy shouting at each other that neither is understanding their opponent. That, and neither probably wants to listen to the other.
The argument from the Right goes something like this.
1.) The United States was founded as a Christian Nation by Christian men. To betray that now would be a Bad Thing (tm).
2.) Since manditory prayer etc is apparently objectionable we support voluntary prayer in public schools.
3.) The pledge of allegiance also happens to contain the words "Under God" in it, which really doesn't mean that much unless you belive in God in the first place. It will make the Christians of this country really angry if you take it out, and won't make all that many people happy if you decide it has to go.
The left counters these arguments with the following
1.) While the United States was founded as a Christian Nation by Christian men it was founded to protect the rights of its citizens. One of those rights is freedom of religion. Consequentely it does not matter what religion the founding fathers ascribed to, rather it matters how the document they created applies to our lives today.
2.) Voluntary prayer isn't really voluntary in public schools. First if it's happening during class time it has an implicit school sanction. Unless you're willing to let the students do whatever they damn well please during that 1-2 minutes you're elevating prayer in the schools. Further, if prayer is present in the schools (or God in the pledge which is in the school) those who choose not to go along with the ritual will be forced into conformity by their peers. It is the schools responcibility to work to prevent this, just as it is the schools responcibility to work to prevent sexual harassment.
3.) Yes, it is generaly agreed that the words "Under God" are pretty inocuous in the pledge. Nonetheless, there are some people in this country who do not belive that such an utterance is appropriate. They have the right to belive this. Further, those people have the right to teach their children whatever they want to about religion. It is not the school's roll to contradict what the parrent teaches the child about religion. Consequently the absence of ANY policy that directly or indirectly addresses or establishes a "norm" insofar as regligion is concerned is a Bad Thing (tm).
On a side note, with respect to evolution v creationism in the schools: It was my understanding that the school was supposed to be presenting Evolution as the most commonly accecpted scientific explanation for the creation of species. The school system recognises that there are other theories, among them Creationism, which also explain the creation of species. Nonetheless, as the class is devoted to the study of science the theory that will be examined is Evolution. If a school presents Evolution as FACT and says that Creationism is flat out wrong that is, in my mind, just as great a violation of 1st ammendment rights as the above topic. The distinction is important.
I would love to shell out for a bundled landline/cellular service that worked as follows.
I have one phone number, my cell phone. The local phone is slaved to the cell. If the cell is in Master mode it will allow X rings before it decides I'm not going to answer it and transfers the call to the landline (whereupon voice mail would pick up after an additional Y rings)
If the cell is in Slave mode it IMMEDIATELY transfers the call to the landline as soon at a connection attempt is made. The landline voice mail then plays this message.
"____(name)___ is unable to answer the land line at this time. Please hold to leave a message or press 1 to be transfered to a cellular telephone. You will be charged for airtime during this call."
This way if I'm expecting calls on my cell I can offer a charge free method of calling me. However, if I'm not interested in taking calls or I'm simply at home and left my cell in silent mode, my landline will ring and I can get tit there.
This kind of system seems so much more efficient and usefull than the current one. Since poor schmucks like me don't have the venture capital to burn on setting a system like this up and making socking great buckets of money from it I'll just rant about it on/. instead!
While I concur with the second part of the statement I'm not sure I agree with the first. A EULA (in many cases) is NOT a legal contract.
Legal Contracts can't be signed under durress. If I go out and buy MS Office XP for whatever crazy price they charge for it now-a-days... here's how the system plays out.
Pop in disk 1 to begin the install
EULA pops up.
I read it, and disagree
So I click "No" or "I disagree"
Installation quits
I take Office XP back to wherever I bought it, with my recipt to ask for a refund (since I didn't install it)
I'm denied my refund because the box is open
Now... call me crazy, but if you walked into your bank tomorow and they told you that they had frozen $400 or so dollars on your account and wouldn't unfreeze it unless you signed a document giving them unspecified powers etc you'd start shouting bank fraud. The Federal Reserve's and the Better Buisness Watchajigger's (my brain is tired ok) phone lines would be emiting visible sparks from the call volume.
An EULA, especialy on purchased software, is a FORCED contract. There are one of two options in this case.
Let me return opened software
Get me to agree to the EULA -=before=- I open the damn thing
First, in the US, a national sales taxes would be unconstitutional
On what grounds? Artical I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Furthermore the Congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerse, which would allow a VAT tax in all likelyhood... though the Rhenquist Court has a history of disliking Interstate Commerce as a rational for pretty much anything.
I'm not saying that normal kids mimic the violence they see in video games, but I am saying that the "one is easier than the other" argument doesn't stand up.
Yes, it's fundamentaly easier for a child to curse than it is for him to gun down a bunch of random people. On the other hand, I don't give a shit if a child curses in front of me (I don't have kids, so it's not my child)... I care a hell of a lot more if the kid is pumping 12 gauge (spelling?) buck shot into my torso.
Allready done. One of the major moves the MPAA made following the Betamax case was to throw their marketing weight behind the idea that the 16:9 ratio was somehow more intrinsic to the movie experiance than the 4:3 ratio.
Seriously, don't you think they could get away with that "This film has been altered from its origional version, it has been formatted to fit your screen" message in tiny white print along the bottom of the screen?
This of course spurred the development of wide screen TVs. The movie industry countered by arguing that the sound quality was better in the theaters. And then there was Dolby 5.1 and the acessories for a home theater, and it was good.
The movie industry knows full well that it can keep people in the theaters through two primary mechanisms.
Keep the theaters at least one step ahead of the easily attainable home experiance.
Time the releases so everyone's seen it before it hits DVD/VHS.
Rest assured we'll see something new, either the IMAX experiance or the heavy use of digital projecters in the near future in most theaters.
It's an MIT thing. I don't know why they don't just give it up. It's a stupid idea.
No, it's not just an MIT thing and its not that stupid an idea. ENIAC didn't exactly conjure to mind a Micro PC with a flat panel display either, but the point was it was one of the first strides toward the kind of computing system that is becoming a fixture in Western homes (and many other parts of the world).
Wearable computing is a technology that simply hasn't come to maturity yet. Things need to get smaller. But as some further down this page have done lets look at the possibilities.
First, realize that the human body isn't designed to support any large quantity of hardware where most of the sensory organs are clustered, consequently we have to seperate the display from the CPU. The torso is an ideal place to put this sort of thing, both for weight purposes and for its relitivly easy access for the user (try typing on your head sometime).
As for applications, the possibilities are limitless. I'll stick to Augmented Reality for most of my examples.
1.) Imagine a surgon with a system capable of integrating the data from Xrays, CAT scans, and other probes on the fly and displaying that data in real time, actualy altering the view of the patients body. This amounts to fewer head movements, faster surgeries (particularly key in an ER), and fewer mistakes. This same principal can be extended to an auto mechanic, or any number of other occupations.
2.) Tired of lugging your laptop, cellphone, PDA, etc around? Meet the ultimate virtual office. A pair of MEMS projectors mounted on a pair of sunglasses traces the "office" in 3d onto your retinas. Tracking systems (much like those allready in use today) track the movement of your fingers in relitive position to your body. By tracking these movements the user can type on a non-existant keyboard and navigate a 3d "desktop" in real space. Metaphors provide interfaces for important applications. Integrate an audio device with this and you can easily move your entire office to the bench in the park without anyone being the wiser.
It doesn't take a lot of immagination to work out how this could be an amazing application. Yes, right now it looks like a bad cross between C3P0 and a Electircal Engineering project gone awry. Nonetheless, in 10 years you'll probably see it integrating into the lining of a designer series of jackets, sunglasses, and hats worn by every trendy highschool and college kid in the country.
I -=am=- a historian and I can pretty conclusively say that a statement like that is the most skewed look one can take at the American Revolution.
Your statement rests on a few key assumptions.
1.) British (the Opressors) military technology had not advanced beyond the level wherein it was impractical/prohibitively expensive for private individuals (the opressed) to own comprable systems. Today this is fundamental not the case. If you decided to exercise your freedom to keep and bear arms to attempt to overthrow the government it'll just go to war against you. Your assault rifle makes quick work of hapless civilians, but it's not much good when there's a F-22 droping a smart bomb down your chimney.
2.) The British controled their empire through the deployment of Naval assets (primarily). Without these assets the British had little hope of sustaining a protracted land battle on foreign soil. The French aided the Colonies on two fronts there. First, they deployed portions of their navy to keep the British from resupplying their troops. Secondly, they kept the British distracted by fighting the War of Jenkin's Ear (yes really). Incidently, said war is a great deal more important on the European side of things than a little known rebellion in 1776.
3.) The massed will of a huge portion of a population has no power if not backed by force of arms. This is fundamentaly false. Look at India (another former British colony BTW). Look at the civil rights movement in this country. Force of arms isn't actualy terribly effective as a means of defending one's liberty. It justifies the opressor in tightening the screws. Look at the Israelie problem. Honestly, do you think Israel would be able to get away with what they're doing to the Pallestinians if we didn't hear about a suicide bombing every three days or so? When the pallestinians fight back it's war. When they don't it's genocide.
If you want to support the right to keep and bare arms I'm all for it. The fundamental independence that the ownership of a weapon invites is quintessential to the character of the United States. Nonetheless, I will point out that your home/life/property are just as easily protected by a standard 12 guage shotgun as by a Browning.50 caliber machine gun. The ammendment doesn't say Congress shall make no law.... it says.... the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. If Congress wants to pass a law indicating that each and every american has the right to carry a pointy letter opener and nothing else, that doesn't technicaly violate the 2nd Ammendment (not in the literalist sence anyhow)
I'm abundantly aware of the fact that Mrs Liebeck was not the first (nor probably the last) nimrod to spill coffee from McDonalds on her lap.
I'm also aware that the award given her was a tort, not intended in any way to aleviate or compensate her for any pain and suffering she might have caused herself, but as a way of telling McDonalds that now might be an excelent time to take the Court's recomendation to cool their coffee down seriously.
Nonetheless, the Liebeck case remains perched in the American psyche as exactly what's wrong with out legal system, not because of what actualy happened, but because of what people think happened. Americans hear a story about an idiot who did something idiotic and then sued a major corporation and won because the coffee they serve is hot (what other temperature would you expect coffee to be?). The story is significant, not because it's true (which is isn't) but because most Americans find it to be plausible. The very fact that we consider it a relevant possibility is commentary enough on the state/perceived state of our legal system.
Nonetheless, no one wants to be Ms. Liebeck. As soon as you go from the perception of someone with a legitimate greviance to the perception of a legal looter you've lost your legitimacy in the eyes of the general public. When decisions start being handed down on the order of billions of dollars you'll see some voters start to reconsider how the copyright legislation is structured.
But that won't happen. The RIAA is -=not=- interested in a courtroom decision. Think about it, and chart the possible outcomes.
1.) Defeat -- The RIAA knows that this is shakey ground. It's that way for two reasons. First, there is some indication that users may be able to pleed ignorance of what tracks are copywritten and which are for general distribution. Secondly, a judge is unlikely to award the RIAA the vast sums of money they sue for. When a person settles out of court that's one thing, but when a judge flat out tells you that your lawsuit is both insane and very unreasonable it has deeper consequences.
2.) Victory -- The RIAA wins the trial. But wait, suddenly they've gone from being "defenders of their legal copyright" to the 2003 version of the woman who spilled coffee on her lap... taken to the Nth degree. Come on, what kind of reaction would you see when some 12 year old kid holding his puppy calls a news conference on the steps of the court house to announce that the RIAA has won a judgement against him for over a Billion dollars?
3.) An out of court settlement. The RIAA gets the money, little Johney doesn't get to call his news conference, and the entire thing never appears in front of a judge. There's no appeals process and no danger of a legal decision shattering the buisness model.
Someday someone's gonna take this to court. Someone with very little to loose. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
With a few possible exceptions, most of us don't actualy own a major peice of fiber that forms a primary pipe in the system. Consequently most/all of us are ALLREADY paying someone for internet access. Handle the payments through them.
Lets start with Alfred, who runs a small town ISP in nowheresville Iowa. Alfred sets up a policy wherein his subscribers Betty, Bob, and Bertha can get email from people on their "contact list" (for lack of a better name) without any sort of fees. Betty has Charlie, Cindy, and Calvin on her contact list, so all three of these people can send her mail for free. She's authenticated them, so the system trusts them for her address. However, Dave isn't on her list. Dave sents Betty and email. Alfred's system sends a message back to Dave informing him that Betty has not authenticated him as a Known Contact and that in order for his message to go through a fee must be deducted from his account in the amount of $0.01.
Dave's ISP is run by another system administrator (Andy) who maintains a secure website wherein users can maintain their accounts and preform other sundry tasks. Dave logs into that account and notes that he has a credit balance of $14.38. His personal login page also indicates that he has 1 unauthenticated message that needs a micro-payment to go through. Dave authorizes the micropayment, and the ISP deducts the money from his account. Note, this doesn't happen automagicaly.
Dan also needs to email Betty, but Dan's ISP is run by a half literate ludite who never bothered to learn HTML (his name is Art). Art's ISP therefore simply sends Dan an email saying that they require a micropayment in order to send the message in question through. Dan either telephones his ISP (since at least in theory this shouldn't happen often) or contacts them in some other way, either paying over the phone by credit card or requesting that the micropayment be added to his next months statement.
Now the nightmare senario. Eva Evonovitch writes a nasty worm that infects Darla's computer. Darla's system sends out 5,000 emails to 4,997 people she doesn't know and three friends. The three messages to friends go through (pitty that) but the other 4,997 come back as a flood of pending charges to Darla's ISP. Darla's ISP hits the panic button, and informs Darla she has a worm. After X days the messages in question time out (because Darla doesn't authenticate them). Thus saving Darla her $49.97 and severely constraining the worm's spread.
The trick is the inter ISP billing system. What it really comes down to, however, is that if I have my system set up this way and you email me from a non-complient ISP you'll get a message back telling you that you have a pending payment. After the message times out you'll get another message back saying as much. If an ISP won't make the effort to allow its users to send email to such a system I imagine market pressures will either crush the system or compel ISPs to adopt.
Functionaly the only way to do it is to rewrite the mail protocols. Here's how I'd implement it.
1.) Valid Email Accounts are tied to a database of other Email addresses. These addresses can send messages to the account holder free of charge.
1a.) Entries in the database (adding names, removing names) require a cryptographic key from the account holder (done blind so as not to overly confuse Granny who uses AOL to talk to her nine grandkids)
2.) When sending a message to an account the receiving system checks to see if the sender is on the free list. If not, the system bills the sender for $0.01. How the billing is enforced is a bit of a tussle, suffice it to say it can not be enforced by the sending system, only the receiving system.
2a.) Should the sender decide not to pay the $0.01 fee is message is expunged. Obviously the weakness here is the ability to overload a server with waiting messages.
I think this would go a long way. While it would be a bit of a hassle to make initial contact via email, continued correspondance would be free. The only people this would impact substantialy are those who mostly send messages to people they don't know/correspond with... spammers.
Just thoughts.... and you don't even have to regulate it by law.
There is actualy a good reason for that. Most cable modems act in much the same way as a cable box does.
The reason Comcast charges more to have Internet and not basic cable than they do for Internet and Basic Cable together is because if you have Internet under their system you get basic cable for free. Yes, free.
The difference is that if you're a basic and internet subscriber they know who you are and can count you towards their advertising statistics etc. More customers gets them cut rates on channels, especialy premiums like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, and Starz.
So in this situation, don't blame the MBAs. Blame whoever it was that designed the cable modems and data transfer standards for Comcast.
My experiances traveling in Toyko paralell this. I've worked as a waiter in the United States and am quite familiar with the $2.13 per hour rule. Tips are a vital part of the salary. Tipping in those situations is not only appropriate but expected. Fundamentaly, waiters can't make a living at their jobs without it.
In Japan, however, things are a little different. Japanese custom considers a gift of money to a stranger (so basicly tipping) to be the rough equivilent of giving money to a begger on the street. Thus the waiter who accepts a tip is implicitly stating that he does not make enough/have enough to support himself and his family. (The Japanese are very focused on the implicit meanings of things) This is an afront to dignity, pride, and honor. Tipping in Japan is not only unexpected, it's RUDE.
I honestly didn't belive the tour book when I read this. However a very polite and kind waitress in a sushi bar explained this to me while I was reeling from the 16 hours of jet lag.
Millions die every year from cureable diseases because they can't afford the price the Western Nations set on the medications.
Millions more die from starvation around the world because they live in countries where the equitable distribution of food isn't a concern to those in power.
Yes, it's tragic that these people died in an accident in Brazil. I feel a great sence of sorrow for them and their families. Yet, lets not forget that these individuals who we're making such a big deal over are but a drop in the buckett compared to the millions who perish because we just don't give a shit.
Don't play the "because people died" card. The world has proven countless times over it doesn't give a damn about the deaths of innocents. We're making a big deal over this because they died in an unexpected accident. If they'd starved to death or died horribly from tetnus the story wouldn't even be posted here.
It deters the half-wit solution "Why don't you just install Linux, that will fix all your problems."
I was trying to make a point, not start a Linux fun fest. If I just wrote "I'm putting together a windows box" I assure you the calliber of responce would have been somewhat different.
Where are my mod points when I need them? This is perhaps the single best argument raised in this thread. I'm a broadband user (ah the joys of in-home ethernet) and I'm in the process of puting together a new machine. It's running windows because some of the software my school requires is Windows only.
Now, I've been downloading updates for the last hour or so now. I understand that the Microsoft site is probably pegged following all the media coverage of the latest worm, but nonetheless, I'm a broadband user and it's still taking me a significant chunk of time to download all these updates.
Dialup can only be worse. If MSFT wants to keep the users current they've gotta either find some way of updating Windows that's not quite so hard on dial up (mailing CDs sounds good) or they need to find some way to bring the average patch size down. I have a hard time buying into the idea that the problems in the system really require a patch of that size. With a little more creative work you'd think they could find a more efficient way to insert the new code.
Bioweapons have been used extensively throughout modern warfare.
They were used on both sides of the Crusades as well as other wars in mainland Asia starting just after the fall of Rome. Namely, the corpses of plague victims were catapulted into and out of beseiged cities (obviously more effective as a seige weapon than as a seige breaker) in the hopes of starting a plague epidemic amongst the opposing army.
Cortez inadventantly used Smallpox to wipe out the overwhelming majority of the Aztec civilization. This was a major factor in his victories in the new world.
Smallpox was used again by the United States against Native American populations. The US gave blankets used previously by smallpox victims to native tribes currently resisting westward expansion.
The Soviets used various bioweapons against the Germans in WWII, noteably Tulmaria and other non-fatal but nonetheless debilitating diseases.
Finaly, Ricin has been used extensively by the KGB and other intelegence organizations to carry out assinations. More than one British diplomat/operative has fallen victim to a tiny pellet of Ricin.
Yes, the Japanese did use bio-weapons against the Chinese in WWII, they did so with a fair degree of success, but nothing like the genocidal sweep of Smallpox through the new world shortly after European contact.
Not terribly accurate. The Roman empire fell due to overexpansion and the domestication of the army. As the military fell into disrepair the army encamped itself in a stationary defensive formation along the boarders of the empire. Then it proceeded to put down roots, have families, and otherwise go to seed.
When the Barbarians invanded the Roman Army was to busy watering the garden and poty training the 2 year old to give a shit.
In a report on the legal basis for firearms controls, a committee of the American Bar Association observed:
There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms than on any other current controversial constitutional issue. The crux of the controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Few would disagree that the crux of this controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment, but, as those writing on the subject have demonstrated, that single sentence is capable of an extraordinary number of interpretations. The main source of confusion has been the meaning and purpose of the initial clause. Was it a qualifying or an amplifying clause? That is, was the right to arms guaranteed only to members of "a well-regulated militia" or was the militia merely the most pressing reason for maintenance of an armed community? The meaning of "militia" itself is by no means clear. It has been argued that only a small, highly trained citizen army was intended, and, alternatively, that all able-bodied men constituted the militia. Finally, emphasis on the militia has been proffered as evidence that the right to arms was only a "collective right" to defend the state, not an individual right to defend oneself. Our pressing need to understand the Second Amendment has served to define areas of disagreement but has brought us no closer to a consensus on its original meaning.
Should we find ourselves unable to determine the framers meaning by reading the text perhaps the better choice is to determine the FUNCTIONAL meaning of the text. Does the second ammendment serve to protect the State from outside attack? Is it intended to allow the formation of a state group to defend the states against the Federal Government? Or is the 2nd ammendment intended to allow citizens to defend themselves individualy from the tyrany of the government and thus to garuntee the rights set forward in the constitution?
Our rights are an interesting thing. Brining this full circle (and back on topic) is this question. Where in the constitution is our right to privacy laied down? The answer is it's not. It's implied. I raise this point to challenge many of the strict constructionalists on/. The right to privacy exists because someone read into the Constitution and decided that the framers wanted to protect that right even though they didn't explicitly say it. It is important to reslize that the Constitution must be a living document. The constitutional questions that arise in our society this year are questions the founders could NEVER have anticipated. Similarily, the questions that will arise 200 years from now are questions we will likely be totaly unable to anticipate.
Finaly remember this. It is entirely possible that the founders left certain passages of the document intentionaly vauge and contradictory. A fairly well known legal theorist whose name escapes me at the moment once said "It is the nature of American Democracy to view as virtuous an incomplete conquest."
In short, American Democracy is built around the idea of compromise and resolution of conflict through debate and half measures. This makes the government inherently slow and often inefficient. It also works to ensure that radical steps are not taken without deep consideration. It seems that certain portions of the constitution are written specificly to inspire debate and disagreement, perhaps in the interests of creating a self regulating balance.
Try picking up a history book before you go making ridiculous assertions.
This sounds like excelent advice. So excelent in fact that you should take it. Lets start with your first historical falacy.
No they didn't. The Soviet Union didn't even exist in 1918. The western powers participated in the Russian civil war in 1918-20 by allying with the forces opposed to the Communists. Small numbers of troops from western nations participated, but those were mostly British and French. The assertion that the the US invaded Russia in completely false.
Except they did. The Soviet Union is generaly dated from November or October of 1917 depending on the callender you're using. The Russian Civil war that followed, (1918-1920 as you correctly surmise) was fought between the then ruling party, the Bolshiveks, and their White Russian opponents.
The United States, along with several other powers that later helped form NATO, invaded the country and intervened on behalf of the insurgant forces. While the statement that the Soviet Union was never invaded is at least poorly defendable, when you say The assertion that the the US invaded Russia in completely false you get 0 points for accuracy.
Your later arguments about Versailles are fairly accurate. The Russians probably didn't feel terribly slighted by the treaty, especialy since it required Germany to give up most of her gains in the Eastern Theater. Poland, for the record, does not appear on a map shortly before WWI... thus giving something back to Poland (implying it was taken from Poland in the first place) is difficult.
Nonetheless, the Soviets did feel that the creation of all those little and totaly undefendable states in estern Europe following Versailles weakened their Western boarder, and made them easy targets for the German advances of WWII. The Soviet insistance of a Buffer Zone after WWII is ample evidence of this.
Further, Versailles was STRONGLY influenced by the Americans. Wilson burned every shread of political capitol he had on the treaty, forming the League of Nations (a dismal failure) and driving home the right of self determination and the ideal of the Nation-State in Eastern Europe. Both of which were dismal failures, and both of which ended up biting the USSR in the ass.
Of course, your last paragraph really sums it up. Claiming that the events that transpired after WWI directly affected Soviet attitudes towards the US 70 years later is a joke. That it kept the Communists in power longer even more so.
Are you insane? Lets map out the events after WWI.
1.) Stalin rises to power. This sets the stage for the rest of Soviet History. Stalin's policies fundamentaly changed the way the Soviet Union looked at the world. He pushed the country into economic overdrive at considerable cost (30 Million Russian Pesents to be exact). As most scholars of the Soviet Period are fond of saying "Stalin found Russia in birch-bark sandles, and left her with nuclear weapons." Yea... minor impact.
2.) The Gutting of the Red Army. With the Red Army hollowed out to a shadow of its former self, the Soviets were unprepared for the German Assault. This resulted in heavy Soviet losses and forced the Soviet Union into an agressive policy. This policy would carry into the Cold War, manifesting as a First Strike policy, which is what made the missiles in Cuba an OFFENSIVE weapon.
I can go on for days, but I think we've conclusively proven that the events following WWI had dramatic impact on Soviet foreign policy both during WWII and after. Further, had these policy changes not occured, the Soviet Union would have sought military expansion after WWII (as origionaly espoused by Lenin). Such a war was at that point unwinable, and could well have contributed to an early collapse.
Of course, all what ifs in history are speculation, and nothing more. Historians confine themselves to what happened... not what might have happened.
I think we can say some things without too much of an argument here.
1.) Genocide is bad. Mass civilian cassualties aren't genocide, but when you start specificly targeting women and children in an attempt to exterminate a people you've crossed the line between war and murder. Genocide, by its very definition can't be carried out against people who can defend themselves.
2.) The United States has been unwilling to commit to a protracted land war and occupation since Vietnam. Again, I'm willing to give you this. As a 23 year old male I'm kind of happy about that in some ways. However the idea of a push button war and consequently a war with little or no preceived cost by the American people has lured us into a few conflits where we had no buisness sticking out nose.
3.) Yes, some people in this world do have an enormous problem with America. I'm going to come right out and say that flying aircraft into buildings isn't a really good way to deal with that frustration. That said, these people aren't without legitimate greviances. The United States sits atop a global economic system founded on the basis of old European colonialism. This system has systematicly crushed their cultures, killed their children, robbed their countries, and marginalized their status on the world stage.
Did the United States deserve what happened on September 11, 2001? No. Absolutely not.
Are the worlds terrorist organizations a blight this planet and its citizens would be better off without? Unquestionably.
But is the United States working to make friends the world over? Is our government making choices that encourage the citizens of these distant countries to accept Americans as brothers and sisters rather than enemies? I don't think so.
My country has caused some real suffering in the world. It's hurt a lot of people and has profited handsomely. While an increased military presence may serve to stop some attacks now, the best way to save our children from having to deal with the same problem is to start thinking about the consequences of our foreign policy.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but who is lible in France for this sort of thing? Lets say I run Adam Inc, which contracts with Bob's House of Advertising, to make a 30 second commercial spot run on CNN.
Now my commercial claims that my product (the super-duper wizbang thingamajigger) is better than a competing product made by Dave Inc.
Dave Inc sues over this advertisement. Who can they sue? Adam Inc? Bob's House of Advertising, or CNN?
Logicaly the target would be Adam Inc or Bob's House of Advertising or both... it would seem that CNN wouldn't be applicable here.
Similarly I wouldn't expect Google to be held responcible for the adverts they display. Google should be expected to turn over relevant documentation should a civil suit arise but I can't imagine that they should be held liable for someone elses trademark infringement.
I think both sides are so busy shouting at each other that neither is understanding their opponent. That, and neither probably wants to listen to the other.
The argument from the Right goes something like this.
1.) The United States was founded as a Christian Nation by Christian men. To betray that now would be a Bad Thing (tm).
2.) Since manditory prayer etc is apparently objectionable we support voluntary prayer in public schools.
3.) The pledge of allegiance also happens to contain the words "Under God" in it, which really doesn't mean that much unless you belive in God in the first place. It will make the Christians of this country really angry if you take it out, and won't make all that many people happy if you decide it has to go.
The left counters these arguments with the following
1.) While the United States was founded as a Christian Nation by Christian men it was founded to protect the rights of its citizens. One of those rights is freedom of religion. Consequentely it does not matter what religion the founding fathers ascribed to, rather it matters how the document they created applies to our lives today.
2.) Voluntary prayer isn't really voluntary in public schools. First if it's happening during class time it has an implicit school sanction. Unless you're willing to let the students do whatever they damn well please during that 1-2 minutes you're elevating prayer in the schools. Further, if prayer is present in the schools (or God in the pledge which is in the school) those who choose not to go along with the ritual will be forced into conformity by their peers. It is the schools responcibility to work to prevent this, just as it is the schools responcibility to work to prevent sexual harassment.
3.) Yes, it is generaly agreed that the words "Under God" are pretty inocuous in the pledge. Nonetheless, there are some people in this country who do not belive that such an utterance is appropriate. They have the right to belive this. Further, those people have the right to teach their children whatever they want to about religion. It is not the school's roll to contradict what the parrent teaches the child about religion. Consequently the absence of ANY policy that directly or indirectly addresses or establishes a "norm" insofar as regligion is concerned is a Bad Thing (tm).
On a side note, with respect to evolution v creationism in the schools: It was my understanding that the school was supposed to be presenting Evolution as the most commonly accecpted scientific explanation for the creation of species. The school system recognises that there are other theories, among them Creationism, which also explain the creation of species. Nonetheless, as the class is devoted to the study of science the theory that will be examined is Evolution. If a school presents Evolution as FACT and says that Creationism is flat out wrong that is, in my mind, just as great a violation of 1st ammendment rights as the above topic. The distinction is important.
I would love to shell out for a bundled landline/cellular service that worked as follows.
/. instead!
I have one phone number, my cell phone. The local phone is slaved to the cell. If the cell is in Master mode it will allow X rings before it decides I'm not going to answer it and transfers the call to the landline (whereupon voice mail would pick up after an additional Y rings)
If the cell is in Slave mode it IMMEDIATELY transfers the call to the landline as soon at a connection attempt is made. The landline voice mail then plays this message.
"____(name)___ is unable to answer the land line at this time. Please hold to leave a message or press 1 to be transfered to a cellular telephone. You will be charged for airtime during this call."
This way if I'm expecting calls on my cell I can offer a charge free method of calling me. However, if I'm not interested in taking calls or I'm simply at home and left my cell in silent mode, my landline will ring and I can get tit there.
This kind of system seems so much more efficient and usefull than the current one. Since poor schmucks like me don't have the venture capital to burn on setting a system like this up and making socking great buckets of money from it I'll just rant about it on
Legal Contracts can't be signed under durress. If I go out and buy MS Office XP for whatever crazy price they charge for it now-a-days... here's how the system plays out.
Now... call me crazy, but if you walked into your bank tomorow and they told you that they had frozen $400 or so dollars on your account and wouldn't unfreeze it unless you signed a document giving them unspecified powers etc you'd start shouting bank fraud. The Federal Reserve's and the Better Buisness Watchajigger's (my brain is tired ok) phone lines would be emiting visible sparks from the call volume.
An EULA, especialy on purchased software, is a FORCED contract. There are one of two options in this case.
First, in the US, a national sales taxes would be unconstitutional
On what grounds? Artical I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Furthermore the Congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerse, which would allow a VAT tax in all likelyhood... though the Rhenquist Court has a history of disliking Interstate Commerce as a rational for pretty much anything.
Tell that to these people.
I'm not saying that normal kids mimic the violence they see in video games, but I am saying that the "one is easier than the other" argument doesn't stand up.
Yes, it's fundamentaly easier for a child to curse than it is for him to gun down a bunch of random people. On the other hand, I don't give a shit if a child curses in front of me (I don't have kids, so it's not my child)... I care a hell of a lot more if the kid is pumping 12 gauge (spelling?) buck shot into my torso.
Seriously, don't you think they could get away with that "This film has been altered from its origional version, it has been formatted to fit your screen" message in tiny white print along the bottom of the screen?
This of course spurred the development of wide screen TVs. The movie industry countered by arguing that the sound quality was better in the theaters. And then there was Dolby 5.1 and the acessories for a home theater, and it was good.
The movie industry knows full well that it can keep people in the theaters through two primary mechanisms.
Rest assured we'll see something new, either the IMAX experiance or the heavy use of digital projecters in the near future in most theaters.
It's an MIT thing. I don't know why they don't just give it up. It's a stupid idea.
No, it's not just an MIT thing and its not that stupid an idea. ENIAC didn't exactly conjure to mind a Micro PC with a flat panel display either, but the point was it was one of the first strides toward the kind of computing system that is becoming a fixture in Western homes (and many other parts of the world).
Wearable computing is a technology that simply hasn't come to maturity yet. Things need to get smaller. But as some further down this page have done lets look at the possibilities.
First, realize that the human body isn't designed to support any large quantity of hardware where most of the sensory organs are clustered, consequently we have to seperate the display from the CPU. The torso is an ideal place to put this sort of thing, both for weight purposes and for its relitivly easy access for the user (try typing on your head sometime).
As for applications, the possibilities are limitless. I'll stick to Augmented Reality for most of my examples.
1.) Imagine a surgon with a system capable of integrating the data from Xrays, CAT scans, and other probes on the fly and displaying that data in real time, actualy altering the view of the patients body. This amounts to fewer head movements, faster surgeries (particularly key in an ER), and fewer mistakes. This same principal can be extended to an auto mechanic, or any number of other occupations.
2.) Tired of lugging your laptop, cellphone, PDA, etc around? Meet the ultimate virtual office. A pair of MEMS projectors mounted on a pair of sunglasses traces the "office" in 3d onto your retinas. Tracking systems (much like those allready in use today) track the movement of your fingers in relitive position to your body. By tracking these movements the user can type on a non-existant keyboard and navigate a 3d "desktop" in real space. Metaphors provide interfaces for important applications. Integrate an audio device with this and you can easily move your entire office to the bench in the park without anyone being the wiser.
It doesn't take a lot of immagination to work out how this could be an amazing application. Yes, right now it looks like a bad cross between C3P0 and a Electircal Engineering project gone awry. Nonetheless, in 10 years you'll probably see it integrating into the lining of a designer series of jackets, sunglasses, and hats worn by every trendy highschool and college kid in the country.
Don't worry. The ticket won't stick. They can't prove it was you driving the car.
Now, if they hand you a ticket at the exit toll that's different.
I -=am=- a historian and I can pretty conclusively say that a statement like that is the most skewed look one can take at the American Revolution.
.50 caliber machine gun. The ammendment doesn't say Congress shall make no law.... it says .... the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. If Congress wants to pass a law indicating that each and every american has the right to carry a pointy letter opener and nothing else, that doesn't technicaly violate the 2nd Ammendment (not in the literalist sence anyhow)
Your statement rests on a few key assumptions.
1.) British (the Opressors) military technology had not advanced beyond the level wherein it was impractical/prohibitively expensive for private individuals (the opressed) to own comprable systems. Today this is fundamental not the case. If you decided to exercise your freedom to keep and bear arms to attempt to overthrow the government it'll just go to war against you. Your assault rifle makes quick work of hapless civilians, but it's not much good when there's a F-22 droping a smart bomb down your chimney.
2.) The British controled their empire through the deployment of Naval assets (primarily). Without these assets the British had little hope of sustaining a protracted land battle on foreign soil. The French aided the Colonies on two fronts there. First, they deployed portions of their navy to keep the British from resupplying their troops. Secondly, they kept the British distracted by fighting the War of Jenkin's Ear (yes really). Incidently, said war is a great deal more important on the European side of things than a little known rebellion in 1776.
3.) The massed will of a huge portion of a population has no power if not backed by force of arms. This is fundamentaly false. Look at India (another former British colony BTW). Look at the civil rights movement in this country. Force of arms isn't actualy terribly effective as a means of defending one's liberty. It justifies the opressor in tightening the screws. Look at the Israelie problem. Honestly, do you think Israel would be able to get away with what they're doing to the Pallestinians if we didn't hear about a suicide bombing every three days or so? When the pallestinians fight back it's war. When they don't it's genocide.
If you want to support the right to keep and bare arms I'm all for it. The fundamental independence that the ownership of a weapon invites is quintessential to the character of the United States. Nonetheless, I will point out that your home/life/property are just as easily protected by a standard 12 guage shotgun as by a Browning
Yea, but besides the roads, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I'm abundantly aware of the fact that Mrs Liebeck was not the first (nor probably the last) nimrod to spill coffee from McDonalds on her lap.
I'm also aware that the award given her was a tort, not intended in any way to aleviate or compensate her for any pain and suffering she might have caused herself, but as a way of telling McDonalds that now might be an excelent time to take the Court's recomendation to cool their coffee down seriously.
Nonetheless, the Liebeck case remains perched in the American psyche as exactly what's wrong with out legal system, not because of what actualy happened, but because of what people think happened. Americans hear a story about an idiot who did something idiotic and then sued a major corporation and won because the coffee they serve is hot (what other temperature would you expect coffee to be?). The story is significant, not because it's true (which is isn't) but because most Americans find it to be plausible. The very fact that we consider it a relevant possibility is commentary enough on the state/perceived state of our legal system.
Nonetheless, no one wants to be Ms. Liebeck. As soon as you go from the perception of someone with a legitimate greviance to the perception of a legal looter you've lost your legitimacy in the eyes of the general public. When decisions start being handed down on the order of billions of dollars you'll see some voters start to reconsider how the copyright legislation is structured.
But that won't happen. The RIAA is -=not=- interested in a courtroom decision. Think about it, and chart the possible outcomes.
1.) Defeat -- The RIAA knows that this is shakey ground. It's that way for two reasons. First, there is some indication that users may be able to pleed ignorance of what tracks are copywritten and which are for general distribution. Secondly, a judge is unlikely to award the RIAA the vast sums of money they sue for. When a person settles out of court that's one thing, but when a judge flat out tells you that your lawsuit is both insane and very unreasonable it has deeper consequences.
2.) Victory -- The RIAA wins the trial. But wait, suddenly they've gone from being "defenders of their legal copyright" to the 2003 version of the woman who spilled coffee on her lap... taken to the Nth degree. Come on, what kind of reaction would you see when some 12 year old kid holding his puppy calls a news conference on the steps of the court house to announce that the RIAA has won a judgement against him for over a Billion dollars?
3.) An out of court settlement. The RIAA gets the money, little Johney doesn't get to call his news conference, and the entire thing never appears in front of a judge. There's no appeals process and no danger of a legal decision shattering the buisness model.
Someday someone's gonna take this to court. Someone with very little to loose. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
With a few possible exceptions, most of us don't actualy own a major peice of fiber that forms a primary pipe in the system. Consequently most/all of us are ALLREADY paying someone for internet access. Handle the payments through them.
Lets start with Alfred, who runs a small town ISP in nowheresville Iowa. Alfred sets up a policy wherein his subscribers Betty, Bob, and Bertha can get email from people on their "contact list" (for lack of a better name) without any sort of fees. Betty has Charlie, Cindy, and Calvin on her contact list, so all three of these people can send her mail for free. She's authenticated them, so the system trusts them for her address. However, Dave isn't on her list. Dave sents Betty and email. Alfred's system sends a message back to Dave informing him that Betty has not authenticated him as a Known Contact and that in order for his message to go through a fee must be deducted from his account in the amount of $0.01.
Dave's ISP is run by another system administrator (Andy) who maintains a secure website wherein users can maintain their accounts and preform other sundry tasks. Dave logs into that account and notes that he has a credit balance of $14.38. His personal login page also indicates that he has 1 unauthenticated message that needs a micro-payment to go through. Dave authorizes the micropayment, and the ISP deducts the money from his account. Note, this doesn't happen automagicaly.
Dan also needs to email Betty, but Dan's ISP is run by a half literate ludite who never bothered to learn HTML (his name is Art). Art's ISP therefore simply sends Dan an email saying that they require a micropayment in order to send the message in question through. Dan either telephones his ISP (since at least in theory this shouldn't happen often) or contacts them in some other way, either paying over the phone by credit card or requesting that the micropayment be added to his next months statement.
Now the nightmare senario. Eva Evonovitch writes a nasty worm that infects Darla's computer. Darla's system sends out 5,000 emails to 4,997 people she doesn't know and three friends. The three messages to friends go through (pitty that) but the other 4,997 come back as a flood of pending charges to Darla's ISP. Darla's ISP hits the panic button, and informs Darla she has a worm. After X days the messages in question time out (because Darla doesn't authenticate them). Thus saving Darla her $49.97 and severely constraining the worm's spread.
The trick is the inter ISP billing system. What it really comes down to, however, is that if I have my system set up this way and you email me from a non-complient ISP you'll get a message back telling you that you have a pending payment. After the message times out you'll get another message back saying as much. If an ISP won't make the effort to allow its users to send email to such a system I imagine market pressures will either crush the system or compel ISPs to adopt.
Functionaly the only way to do it is to rewrite the mail protocols. Here's how I'd implement it.
1.) Valid Email Accounts are tied to a database of other Email addresses. These addresses can send messages to the account holder free of charge.
1a.) Entries in the database (adding names, removing names) require a cryptographic key from the account holder (done blind so as not to overly confuse Granny who uses AOL to talk to her nine grandkids)
2.) When sending a message to an account the receiving system checks to see if the sender is on the free list. If not, the system bills the sender for $0.01. How the billing is enforced is a bit of a tussle, suffice it to say it can not be enforced by the sending system, only the receiving system.
2a.) Should the sender decide not to pay the $0.01 fee is message is expunged. Obviously the weakness here is the ability to overload a server with waiting messages.
I think this would go a long way. While it would be a bit of a hassle to make initial contact via email, continued correspondance would be free. The only people this would impact substantialy are those who mostly send messages to people they don't know/correspond with... spammers.
Just thoughts.... and you don't even have to regulate it by law.
There is actualy a good reason for that. Most cable modems act in much the same way as a cable box does.
The reason Comcast charges more to have Internet and not basic cable than they do for Internet and Basic Cable together is because if you have Internet under their system you get basic cable for free. Yes, free.
The difference is that if you're a basic and internet subscriber they know who you are and can count you towards their advertising statistics etc. More customers gets them cut rates on channels, especialy premiums like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, and Starz.
So in this situation, don't blame the MBAs. Blame whoever it was that designed the cable modems and data transfer standards for Comcast.
My experiances traveling in Toyko paralell this. I've worked as a waiter in the United States and am quite familiar with the $2.13 per hour rule. Tips are a vital part of the salary. Tipping in those situations is not only appropriate but expected. Fundamentaly, waiters can't make a living at their jobs without it.
In Japan, however, things are a little different. Japanese custom considers a gift of money to a stranger (so basicly tipping) to be the rough equivilent of giving money to a begger on the street. Thus the waiter who accepts a tip is implicitly stating that he does not make enough/have enough to support himself and his family. (The Japanese are very focused on the implicit meanings of things) This is an afront to dignity, pride, and honor. Tipping in Japan is not only unexpected, it's RUDE.
I honestly didn't belive the tour book when I read this. However a very polite and kind waitress in a sushi bar explained this to me while I was reeling from the 16 hours of jet lag.
Millions die every year from cureable diseases because they can't afford the price the Western Nations set on the medications.
Millions more die from starvation around the world because they live in countries where the equitable distribution of food isn't a concern to those in power.
Yes, it's tragic that these people died in an accident in Brazil. I feel a great sence of sorrow for them and their families. Yet, lets not forget that these individuals who we're making such a big deal over are but a drop in the buckett compared to the millions who perish because we just don't give a shit.
Don't play the "because people died" card. The world has proven countless times over it doesn't give a damn about the deaths of innocents. We're making a big deal over this because they died in an unexpected accident. If they'd starved to death or died horribly from tetnus the story wouldn't even be posted here.
It deters the half-wit solution "Why don't you just install Linux, that will fix all your problems."
I was trying to make a point, not start a Linux fun fest. If I just wrote "I'm putting together a windows box" I assure you the calliber of responce would have been somewhat different.
Where are my mod points when I need them? This is perhaps the single best argument raised in this thread. I'm a broadband user (ah the joys of in-home ethernet) and I'm in the process of puting together a new machine. It's running windows because some of the software my school requires is Windows only.
Now, I've been downloading updates for the last hour or so now. I understand that the Microsoft site is probably pegged following all the media coverage of the latest worm, but nonetheless, I'm a broadband user and it's still taking me a significant chunk of time to download all these updates.
Dialup can only be worse. If MSFT wants to keep the users current they've gotta either find some way of updating Windows that's not quite so hard on dial up (mailing CDs sounds good) or they need to find some way to bring the average patch size down. I have a hard time buying into the idea that the problems in the system really require a patch of that size. With a little more creative work you'd think they could find a more efficient way to insert the new code.
Errr... not quite true.
Bioweapons have been used extensively throughout modern warfare.
They were used on both sides of the Crusades as well as other wars in mainland Asia starting just after the fall of Rome. Namely, the corpses of plague victims were catapulted into and out of beseiged cities (obviously more effective as a seige weapon than as a seige breaker) in the hopes of starting a plague epidemic amongst the opposing army.
Cortez inadventantly used Smallpox to wipe out the overwhelming majority of the Aztec civilization. This was a major factor in his victories in the new world.
Smallpox was used again by the United States against Native American populations. The US gave blankets used previously by smallpox victims to native tribes currently resisting westward expansion.
The Soviets used various bioweapons against the Germans in WWII, noteably Tulmaria and other non-fatal but nonetheless debilitating diseases.
Finaly, Ricin has been used extensively by the KGB and other intelegence organizations to carry out assinations. More than one British diplomat/operative has fallen victim to a tiny pellet of Ricin.
Yes, the Japanese did use bio-weapons against the Chinese in WWII, they did so with a fair degree of success, but nothing like the genocidal sweep of Smallpox through the new world shortly after European contact.
Not terribly accurate. The Roman empire fell due to overexpansion and the domestication of the army. As the military fell into disrepair the army encamped itself in a stationary defensive formation along the boarders of the empire. Then it proceeded to put down roots, have families, and otherwise go to seed.
When the Barbarians invanded the Roman Army was to busy watering the garden and poty training the 2 year old to give a shit.
In a report on the legal basis for firearms controls, a committee of the American Bar Association observed:
Few would disagree that the crux of this controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment, but, as those writing on the subject have demonstrated, that single sentence is capable of an extraordinary number of interpretations. The main source of confusion has been the meaning and purpose of the initial clause. Was it a qualifying or an amplifying clause? That is, was the right to arms guaranteed only to members of "a well-regulated militia" or was the militia merely the most pressing reason for maintenance of an armed community? The meaning of "militia" itself is by no means clear. It has been argued that only a small, highly trained citizen army was intended, and, alternatively, that all able-bodied men constituted the militia. Finally, emphasis on the militia has been proffered as evidence that the right to arms was only a "collective right" to defend the state, not an individual right to defend oneself. Our pressing need to understand the Second Amendment has served to define areas of disagreement but has brought us no closer to a consensus on its original meaning.
Should we find ourselves unable to determine the framers meaning by reading the text perhaps the better choice is to determine the FUNCTIONAL meaning of the text. Does the second ammendment serve to protect the State from outside attack? Is it intended to allow the formation of a state group to defend the states against the Federal Government? Or is the 2nd ammendment intended to allow citizens to defend themselves individualy from the tyrany of the government and thus to garuntee the rights set forward in the constitution?
Our rights are an interesting thing. Brining this full circle (and back on topic) is this question. Where in the constitution is our right to privacy laied down? The answer is it's not. It's implied. I raise this point to challenge many of the strict constructionalists on
Finaly remember this. It is entirely possible that the founders left certain passages of the document intentionaly vauge and contradictory. A fairly well known legal theorist whose name escapes me at the moment once said "It is the nature of American Democracy to view as virtuous an incomplete conquest."
In short, American Democracy is built around the idea of compromise and resolution of conflict through debate and half measures. This makes the government inherently slow and often inefficient. It also works to ensure that radical steps are not taken without deep consideration. It seems that certain portions of the constitution are written specificly to inspire debate and disagreement, perhaps in the interests of creating a self regulating balance.
Is copyright becoming one of those areas?
Try picking up a history book before you go making ridiculous assertions.
This sounds like excelent advice. So excelent in fact that you should take it. Lets start with your first historical falacy.
No they didn't. The Soviet Union didn't even exist in 1918. The western powers participated in the Russian civil war in 1918-20 by allying with the forces opposed to the Communists. Small numbers of troops from western nations participated, but those were mostly British and French. The assertion that the the US invaded Russia in completely false.
Except they did. The Soviet Union is generaly dated from November or October of 1917 depending on the callender you're using. The Russian Civil war that followed, (1918-1920 as you correctly surmise) was fought between the then ruling party, the Bolshiveks, and their White Russian opponents.
The United States, along with several other powers that later helped form NATO, invaded the country and intervened on behalf of the insurgant forces. While the statement that the Soviet Union was never invaded is at least poorly defendable, when you say The assertion that the the US invaded Russia in completely false you get 0 points for accuracy.
Your later arguments about Versailles are fairly accurate. The Russians probably didn't feel terribly slighted by the treaty, especialy since it required Germany to give up most of her gains in the Eastern Theater. Poland, for the record, does not appear on a map shortly before WWI... thus giving something back to Poland (implying it was taken from Poland in the first place) is difficult.
Nonetheless, the Soviets did feel that the creation of all those little and totaly undefendable states in estern Europe following Versailles weakened their Western boarder, and made them easy targets for the German advances of WWII. The Soviet insistance of a Buffer Zone after WWII is ample evidence of this.
Further, Versailles was STRONGLY influenced by the Americans. Wilson burned every shread of political capitol he had on the treaty, forming the League of Nations (a dismal failure) and driving home the right of self determination and the ideal of the Nation-State in Eastern Europe. Both of which were dismal failures, and both of which ended up biting the USSR in the ass.
Of course, your last paragraph really sums it up. Claiming that the events that transpired after WWI directly affected Soviet attitudes towards the US 70 years later is a joke. That it kept the Communists in power longer even more so.
Are you insane? Lets map out the events after WWI.
1.) Stalin rises to power. This sets the stage for the rest of Soviet History. Stalin's policies fundamentaly changed the way the Soviet Union looked at the world. He pushed the country into economic overdrive at considerable cost (30 Million Russian Pesents to be exact). As most scholars of the Soviet Period are fond of saying "Stalin found Russia in birch-bark sandles, and left her with nuclear weapons." Yea... minor impact.
2.) The Gutting of the Red Army. With the Red Army hollowed out to a shadow of its former self, the Soviets were unprepared for the German Assault. This resulted in heavy Soviet losses and forced the Soviet Union into an agressive policy. This policy would carry into the Cold War, manifesting as a First Strike policy, which is what made the missiles in Cuba an OFFENSIVE weapon.
I can go on for days, but I think we've conclusively proven that the events following WWI had dramatic impact on Soviet foreign policy both during WWII and after. Further, had these policy changes not occured, the Soviet Union would have sought military expansion after WWII (as origionaly espoused by Lenin). Such a war was at that point unwinable, and could well have contributed to an early collapse.
Of course, all what ifs in history are speculation, and nothing more. Historians confine themselves to what happened... not what might have happened.
Hey now... lets not get carried away.
I think we can say some things without too much of an argument here.
1.) Genocide is bad. Mass civilian cassualties aren't genocide, but when you start specificly targeting women and children in an attempt to exterminate a people you've crossed the line between war and murder. Genocide, by its very definition can't be carried out against people who can defend themselves.
2.) The United States has been unwilling to commit to a protracted land war and occupation since Vietnam. Again, I'm willing to give you this. As a 23 year old male I'm kind of happy about that in some ways. However the idea of a push button war and consequently a war with little or no preceived cost by the American people has lured us into a few conflits where we had no buisness sticking out nose.
3.) Yes, some people in this world do have an enormous problem with America. I'm going to come right out and say that flying aircraft into buildings isn't a really good way to deal with that frustration. That said, these people aren't without legitimate greviances. The United States sits atop a global economic system founded on the basis of old European colonialism. This system has systematicly crushed their cultures, killed their children, robbed their countries, and marginalized their status on the world stage.
Did the United States deserve what happened on September 11, 2001? No. Absolutely not.
Are the worlds terrorist organizations a blight this planet and its citizens would be better off without? Unquestionably.
But is the United States working to make friends the world over? Is our government making choices that encourage the citizens of these distant countries to accept Americans as brothers and sisters rather than enemies? I don't think so.
My country has caused some real suffering in the world. It's hurt a lot of people and has profited handsomely. While an increased military presence may serve to stop some attacks now, the best way to save our children from having to deal with the same problem is to start thinking about the consequences of our foreign policy.