Re:No Overtime No Vacation
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Wal-Mart is the retailer that's pretty much on the top of the food chain. Kmart recently filed for bankruptcy.
Re:Can I see some numbers, please
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
"The facts are that the USA is importing much more than it is exporting,"
Which doesn't mean much when you consider that the US has a services-based economy, which means that most of the money earned in the US comes not from making things, but from doing things.
"and this only works because the Dollar is the dominating currency and the US government can simply print more of them."
Another gold standard paranoid, I see. Things haven't been anywhere near that simple for the better part of a century (if they were ever that simple). Even ignoring the fact that most of the dollars out there don't have a physical form, simply "printing more" does nothing but devalue the currency, so no more wealth is actually made.
If I have $2.00 in 2000 and I decide to print an additional $2.00 in 2001, giving me a total of $4.00, that means that 1.00 2001 dollar is worth 0.50 2000 dollars. The only thing printing more money does to wealth is waste it, because printing isn't free.
"that the Arab nations are considering switching to Euro."
No, it was only Sadam's Iraq that did that. Oil is still traded in the internatinal market in US dollars.
Not that that matters any because the vast majority of the oil the US uses comes from the western hemisphere (including within our own borders). Why pay extra for shipping from the Persian Gulf when you can just get it from nearby Mexico and Venezuela instead?
"IIRC Iraq already did and Iran was thinking about it (or did they switch as well? Don't remember)."
What Iraq was doing under the Baath regime is now very moot, and what Iran does doesn't matter to the US because we still wouldn't be buying from Iran anyway.
"Once the important economies switch to Euros, the Dollar will deflate very rapidly."
That's very funny. You do know that the dollar is slipping (ie. "inflating") compared to the euro right now, right? And you do understand that a weakening dollar is a very, very good thing for US exporters, right?
"Since practically nothing is actually produced in the USA anymore,"
Instead of saying "services-based economy" again, I'll just point out that the productivity lead the US enjoys is very much alive and well in the manufacturing industry (just look at some of the links in the highly-modded posts on this article for numbers). While we may not make as much, what we make is more valuable.
"there is nothing (apart from war) that the US government could actually be threatening anyone with."
The federal government allowhing the US dollar to continue to slip is a very real threat to places that rely heavily on exporting to the US. Like Japan.
"And once people don't depend on the Dollar, there is no reason to listen to the US government anymore."
You mean besides the fact that we have our military stationed all over the world and the fact that our culture (like it or not) is by far the dominant one on the planet?
"You might also want to read this article."
The article you link to has no verifiable sources. Heck, it doesn't even name the author. Why should I believe the hypotheses it tries to push?
"And apart from that: my personal statistics indicate that US IT workers are much less productive than others. You can measure it particularly well in the free software world. I suggest you take some time off (hehe) and do some statistics on Sourceforge mailing lists."
How about you go back to school and learn what proper sampling is instead. Is there any reason to believe that coders that decide to work on open-source projects (and not all OSS prjoects, just those on Sourceforge) are indicative of coders as a whole? I doubt you can argue that the majority of US coders can be found on SorceFourge, so you had better have a damned good explaination to how coders on SourceForge are a valid statistical sample.
Re:No Overtime No Vacation
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
"the really hip management style is inspired by what American CEOs do and did with American Companies.:)"
The key is which American companies? Are we talking Wal-Mart or Kmart?
No no, not $0.36 per hour, $0.36 for every $1.00 you "give" to the federal government (not counting the additional $0.17 Uncle Sam takes for Social Security).
A little dated, but from a similar "Americans work more hours" article here:
(I)n 1996, the US outpaced Japan by nearly $10,000 (USD) in terms of value added per person employed and in terms of value added per hour worked by nearly $9(.)
...
In terms of valued added per hour worked in 1997, US workers outproduce their Canadian counterparts by more than $5USD.
This article is dated 1999, so I have no idea how much the gap has closed (there is mention of recent gains in the other industrialized countries), but it sure seems to debunk the "lazy Americans" myth.
"The French Resistance during World War Two (WWII) were regarded by the Nazis as terrorists."
When they targeted civillian collaborationists, they were. When they targeted German soldiers, they weren't. The poster you mention can think whatever they want, but the word "terrorist" has a very specific meaning with reguards to the international rules of warfare.
"Irish republican terrorists regard themselves as freedom fighters."
Again, when they target Protestant/Ulster civillians, they were. When they targeted the Royal Army, they weren't. The targeting of police is a gray area.
"He may have started the Iran-Iraq War (with US backing, I might just add), invaded Kuwait (which, as he claimed, was historically part of Iraq before the region was divided up after WWII by the British), and launched Scud missiles at Israel (during the Gulf War) but all of those acts were carried out by one nation upon another in open war."
"Open war" still has its rules, rules that have effectively been around for centuries. Specifically, the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Accords have been around in one form or another since the 1920's, but I can't think of any the Baath regime didn't violate. Deliberately targeting civillian targets, genocide, forced migrations of ethnic groups...
And as for the Scuds you mentioned, Iraq was at war with Israel only in Sadam's mind. Israeli forces were decidedly absent in that particular coalition. And those missiles weren't exactly pointed at Israeli airfields.
"The people of Iraq aren't free."
Debatable. And, as I said before, the process isn't over. But I fail to see how they are not more free than they were this time last year.
"When did the US ever "liberate" Cuba, as you suggest?"
If your grasp of history went back before 1938 you'd know about this little period back in the 1890's called "The Spanish-American War." We went to war with Spain specifically to to liberate Cuba from oppresive Spanish rule. Just how oppressive it was is open to debate, but note that "concentration camps" isn't a concept first thought in the 1940's. Congress' war declaration specifically stated that our goal was the liberation (and not occupation) of Cuba, and the United States abandoned Cuba almost as quickly as we declared war to begin with, lest someone might think of Cuba as "American territory." Because the US didn't take the time to do things right, independent Cuba has been ruled by a series of strongmen up to and including Castro. Personally, this is not something I'd like to see repeated with Iraq.
You'd think mentioning the Philippines and Puerto Rico in the same breath as Cuba would be a big tip-off to what I was talking about. Silly me.
"but when did the US ever "free" Cuba?"
June 10, 1898. Remember the Maine?
"And, while we're at it, how was the US intervention in the Philippines beneficial to its people?"
Aguinaldo would probably agree with you there, but I'd have to say that the Philippines are at least a little better off than Cuba right now.
"And I haven't even mentioned the 4 million South East Asians that were killed by US forces during the Vietnam War."
How does that compare to the number killed by Pol Pot? Good thing the peace movement got us out of Cambodia, hm?
And it's rather amusing that you would bring up Vietnam right now. First, you fault the US for violating Iraq's national integrity, but then you fault the US for trying to protect the integrity of South Vietnam?
Re:hardly working
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
According to a pie chart that came with my IRS tax paperwork, ~35% of the 2001 federal budget was spent on "social programs" (which doesn't include an additional ~17% spent solely on Social Security). Which is about twice as big as the ~17% spent on the departments of state and defense combined (you know, those things that everybody "knows" gets the most federal money spent on them). And that doesn't even go into state and local spending.
Of course, if you think one-third is a "very small amount..."
IIRC, it wasn't too long ago that Paris mandated a 35-hour work week.
Re:No surprise
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"The reason Americans have to work more than the rest of the world is because they are less productive."
Actually, just the opposite. Not only do Americans work more hours than all other industrialized nations (IIRC, only two other countries overall beat us), but we also tend to be more productive. For example, one of the big problems Ottawa has with NAFTA is that American workers are overall more productive hour-per-hour than Canadian workers, giving American businesses a competitive advantage over Canadian businesses.
"I doubt you could sit at a desk for 8 hours and really only be coding for 5"
What you're talking about happened during the so-called internet bubble. Welcome to 2003. And even if that were still true, how many US workers are coders?
"You FEEL like it's a democracy because you've been TOLD it's a democracy."
Actually, I feel like it's a democratically representative federal republic, and I know this because I've read the United States Constitution, am registered to vote, have voted often, and even had my name on the ballot last year. Heck, I even saw the effects of my meagar campaigning in the election turn-outs.
And beyond that, I've had a true dialog with my elected representatives (if only at the local level) and have seen the effects of said dalog played out in the writing of laws.
While you don't come right out and say it, you seem to believe that exactly the opposite is true. Why is this? Do you "feel" it's not a democracy because of what someone else "told" you?
"You hear News from the press but really it's the 'what they want you to hear' kind of news."
But I hear my news from a collection of various "thems" and know what their angles are.
"How come the so-called PRESS is all over the news when it comes to Iraq and finding clues to WMD's when, right here in the US"
Why do you seem to be limiting your definition of "press" to only those organizations talking about international relations? Heck, I can think of a few newspapers I read where that information doesn't even make the front page, simply because they don't focus on international politics.
"There is no coverage of how BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS are being taken away by the misnamed PATRIOT Act ?"
I seem to hear about that every few days on "All Things Considered" on NPR on my drive home from work. Recently, there was an article on the faild attempt to overturn CIPA in the federal courts. Today, the big news was the USSC overturning Texas' (and other states') anti-sodomy laws.
"Or how come Americans never got to see Iraqi people being shot by American soldiers during the invasion when every body else in the world saw ?"
Maybe because most US news organizations opted for the "embeded" option? And where is your evidence of deliberate government censorship of those pictures you claim "everybody else in the world saw?" Is there some PRC-esque jamming going on in the US that I'm not aware of?
"Or how, I never saw on the CNN's from page Greenspan's initial objections to the Bush administration's plan on tax cuts for the rich ?"
Perhaps if you got your news from something other than CNN once in a while... Or are we to believe that there is a government minder holding a gun to your head, forcing you to watch it?
"Those car chases and that dog rescued by the firemen from some rooftop is more interesting."
So sayeth Nielson. Whether or not 200 million people can be wrong doesn't matter much when those 200 million also happen to be paying customers. However, I fail to see how this equates with government-sponsored censorship. The only government sponsorship I see of television programs comes on PBS, and it tends to be the antithesis of the kind of television you're complaining about.
"By the same vein the CIA has tried to assassinate many a foreign national and leader"
I wouldn't call attempts to assassinate a chief of state (including the US president) "terrorism" because they are also commanders-in-chief of the military, making them valid military targets.
"Also by the same vein the US has manufacturered and use WOMD."
But we have not used them against our own civillian populace. And even when we did use them on someone else's civillian populace, those weapons were primarily meant to take out military targets.
"Also going one further, the US uses economic and military threat as means to ends"
There's a difference between the threat of force and the actual use of force. Gunboat diplomacy is still diplomacy.
And I fail to see how international economic measures can be called "terrorism" when they are invariably used against a country's government and not necesarily on the local populace.
"You cant say that one is and the other isnt when they have used the same methods."
I fail to see how they are the same methods.
"not because of the excuses we used to go there."
The "excuses" you mention were more for the UN than the US populace. The one and only true rule at the UN is that you can't slaughter your neighbors people, while tyrants slaughtering people within your own borders are given carte blanche to keep on doing what they do. Try and name one instance of intranational genocide since 1945 that the UN acted against.
Liberating someone else's people, no matter the reasons (be they selfish or altruistic), is a big no-no as far as the international community in general and the UN in particular are concerned. I don't believe either the president or anybody from the State Department ever used the word "liberation" before the UN while attempting to justify this recent war, and it's because they knew better.
"If we do not find anything then we invaded a sovereign foreign country on false pretenses."
So even attempting to liberate a people is a "false pretense?" Driving another nail into the coffin of altruism, I see...
"It looks very likely that Iran will be next,"
HAH!
The US is trying VERY hard not to touch Iran in any way, shape or form, especially in light of the recent student protests. If some in the State Department even happens to mention the word "Iran" in passing, they know that this will give credence to the religious hard-liners cries of "collaborationists" and ultimately hurt the students' movement. Yes, the US would like to see a more free Iran, but the best way this can be accomplished is to let the various internal movements run their course, and the best we can do to help them (like it or not) is to ignore it.
""The weapons we are searching for are being smuggled over your borders.""
One I haven't heard, but...
""You are now interfering in iraqi internal politics.""
Iranian-backed and -funded Shia groups (originally assembled to fight the Baath regime) are magically apearing within Iraq's borders and attempting to have their weight felt in any new government. What would you call that?
"Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is an attempt at thought control."
Um... huh? When did the definitions of "international" and "terrorst" get changed?
Did Sadam have a history of using "terror" (including, but not limited to, deliberately attacking civillian targets) to try to influence other people? Yes. Hence, he's a terrorist.
Did he apply this to countries outside his own borders? Yes. Hence, he's an international terrorist.
Where's the disconnect here?
"So is calling our actions there "liberation."
First off, it's not done yet. But even if it were, it would seem the Iraqis now have the ability to vocally protest their rulers that they didn't have before. Is the ability to organize and hold anti-government protests no longer considered a "liberty?" If it is, then how is granting this to people not "liberating" them?
(As an aside, for an example of what can happen when the US immediately pulls out of a country after liberating it from an oppresive government, see Cuba. Compare it to the Philippenes and Puerto Rico.)
"Thinking about it, you can easily see that the issue is not so cut and dried as "good guys" versus "axis of evil.""
But is it necesary for you to use some of the same "definition changing" tactics you accuse your antagonists of using to prove your point?
"Think about it! One-tenth of that amount would mean 471 Open Source programmers paid $100,000 for a year."
A year? And what happens if/when a new front in the "War on Terror" opens up in three months? Sure, this software won't be used on the front, but even REMFs get busier when Things Happen. The Army needs a solution that is either isntantaneous (not going to happen) or 100% backwards-compatible with their existing solution (what's WINE been up to?).
That can't be true. Novell doesn't have its own Slashdot section. Heck, even BSD (which, I believe, stands for BSD, Still Dying) has it's own section. So nobody must use Novell
"Acclaim has to be licensed, and Nintendo may just be a little bitter."
Why? We're not exactly talking about Squaresoft here. Nintendo has been content to let Acclaim publish games of questionable quality on their platforms for decades, why should that change now?
Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart is the retailer that's pretty much on the top of the food chain. Kmart recently filed for bankruptcy.
"The facts are that the USA is importing much more than it is exporting,"
Which doesn't mean much when you consider that the US has a services-based economy, which means that most of the money earned in the US comes not from making things, but from doing things.
"and this only works because the Dollar is the dominating currency and the US government can simply print more of them."
Another gold standard paranoid, I see. Things haven't been anywhere near that simple for the better part of a century (if they were ever that simple). Even ignoring the fact that most of the dollars out there don't have a physical form, simply "printing more" does nothing but devalue the currency, so no more wealth is actually made.
If I have $2.00 in 2000 and I decide to print an additional $2.00 in 2001, giving me a total of $4.00, that means that 1.00 2001 dollar is worth 0.50 2000 dollars. The only thing printing more money does to wealth is waste it, because printing isn't free.
"that the Arab nations are considering switching to Euro."
No, it was only Sadam's Iraq that did that. Oil is still traded in the internatinal market in US dollars.
Not that that matters any because the vast majority of the oil the US uses comes from the western hemisphere (including within our own borders). Why pay extra for shipping from the Persian Gulf when you can just get it from nearby Mexico and Venezuela instead?
"IIRC Iraq already did and Iran was thinking about it (or did they switch as well? Don't remember)."
What Iraq was doing under the Baath regime is now very moot, and what Iran does doesn't matter to the US because we still wouldn't be buying from Iran anyway.
"Once the important economies switch to Euros, the Dollar will deflate very rapidly."
That's very funny. You do know that the dollar is slipping (ie. "inflating") compared to the euro right now, right? And you do understand that a weakening dollar is a very, very good thing for US exporters, right?
"Since practically nothing is actually produced in the USA anymore,"
Instead of saying "services-based economy" again, I'll just point out that the productivity lead the US enjoys is very much alive and well in the manufacturing industry (just look at some of the links in the highly-modded posts on this article for numbers). While we may not make as much, what we make is more valuable.
"there is nothing (apart from war) that the US government could actually be threatening anyone with."
The federal government allowhing the US dollar to continue to slip is a very real threat to places that rely heavily on exporting to the US. Like Japan.
"And once people don't depend on the Dollar, there is no reason to listen to the US government anymore."
You mean besides the fact that we have our military stationed all over the world and the fact that our culture (like it or not) is by far the dominant one on the planet?
"You might also want to read this article."
The article you link to has no verifiable sources. Heck, it doesn't even name the author. Why should I believe the hypotheses it tries to push?
"And apart from that: my personal statistics indicate that US IT workers are much less productive than others. You can measure it particularly well in the free software world. I suggest you take some time off (hehe) and do some statistics on Sourceforge mailing lists."
How about you go back to school and learn what proper sampling is instead. Is there any reason to believe that coders that decide to work on open-source projects (and not all OSS prjoects, just those on Sourceforge) are indicative of coders as a whole? I doubt you can argue that the majority of US coders can be found on SorceFourge, so you had better have a damned good explaination to how coders on SourceForge are a valid statistical sample.
"the really hip management style is inspired by what American CEOs do and did with American Companies. :)"
The key is which American companies? Are we talking Wal-Mart or Kmart?
No no, not $0.36 per hour, $0.36 for every $1.00 you "give" to the federal government (not counting the additional $0.17 Uncle Sam takes for Social Security).
"The French Resistance during World War Two (WWII) were regarded by the Nazis as terrorists."
When they targeted civillian collaborationists, they were. When they targeted German soldiers, they weren't. The poster you mention can think whatever they want, but the word "terrorist" has a very specific meaning with reguards to the international rules of warfare.
"Irish republican terrorists regard themselves as freedom fighters."
Again, when they target Protestant/Ulster civillians, they were. When they targeted the Royal Army, they weren't. The targeting of police is a gray area.
"He may have started the Iran-Iraq War (with US backing, I might just add), invaded Kuwait (which, as he claimed, was historically part of Iraq before the region was divided up after WWII by the British), and launched Scud missiles at Israel (during the Gulf War) but all of those acts were carried out by one nation upon another in open war."
"Open war" still has its rules, rules that have effectively been around for centuries. Specifically, the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Accords have been around in one form or another since the 1920's, but I can't think of any the Baath regime didn't violate. Deliberately targeting civillian targets, genocide, forced migrations of ethnic groups...
And as for the Scuds you mentioned, Iraq was at war with Israel only in Sadam's mind. Israeli forces were decidedly absent in that particular coalition. And those missiles weren't exactly pointed at Israeli airfields.
"The people of Iraq aren't free."
Debatable. And, as I said before, the process isn't over. But I fail to see how they are not more free than they were this time last year.
"When did the US ever "liberate" Cuba, as you suggest?"
If your grasp of history went back before 1938 you'd know about this little period back in the 1890's called "The Spanish-American War." We went to war with Spain specifically to to liberate Cuba from oppresive Spanish rule. Just how oppressive it was is open to debate, but note that "concentration camps" isn't a concept first thought in the 1940's. Congress' war declaration specifically stated that our goal was the liberation (and not occupation) of Cuba, and the United States abandoned Cuba almost as quickly as we declared war to begin with, lest someone might think of Cuba as "American territory." Because the US didn't take the time to do things right, independent Cuba has been ruled by a series of strongmen up to and including Castro. Personally, this is not something I'd like to see repeated with Iraq.
You'd think mentioning the Philippines and Puerto Rico in the same breath as Cuba would be a big tip-off to what I was talking about. Silly me.
"but when did the US ever "free" Cuba?"
June 10, 1898. Remember the Maine?
"And, while we're at it, how was the US intervention in the Philippines beneficial to its people?"
Aguinaldo would probably agree with you there, but I'd have to say that the Philippines are at least a little better off than Cuba right now.
"And I haven't even mentioned the 4 million South East Asians that were killed by US forces during the Vietnam War."
How does that compare to the number killed by Pol Pot? Good thing the peace movement got us out of Cambodia, hm?
And it's rather amusing that you would bring up Vietnam right now. First, you fault the US for violating Iraq's national integrity, but then you fault the US for trying to protect the integrity of South Vietnam?
According to a pie chart that came with my IRS tax paperwork, ~35% of the 2001 federal budget was spent on "social programs" (which doesn't include an additional ~17% spent solely on Social Security). Which is about twice as big as the ~17% spent on the departments of state and defense combined (you know, those things that everybody "knows" gets the most federal money spent on them). And that doesn't even go into state and local spending.
Of course, if you think one-third is a "very small amount..."
IIRC, it wasn't too long ago that Paris mandated a 35-hour work week.
"The reason Americans have to work more than the rest of the world is because they are less productive."
Actually, just the opposite. Not only do Americans work more hours than all other industrialized nations (IIRC, only two other countries overall beat us), but we also tend to be more productive. For example, one of the big problems Ottawa has with NAFTA is that American workers are overall more productive hour-per-hour than Canadian workers, giving American businesses a competitive advantage over Canadian businesses.
"I doubt you could sit at a desk for 8 hours and really only be coding for 5"
What you're talking about happened during the so-called internet bubble. Welcome to 2003. And even if that were still true, how many US workers are coders?
"You FEEL like it's a democracy because you've been TOLD it's a democracy."
Actually, I feel like it's a democratically representative federal republic, and I know this because I've read the United States Constitution, am registered to vote, have voted often, and even had my name on the ballot last year. Heck, I even saw the effects of my meagar campaigning in the election turn-outs.
And beyond that, I've had a true dialog with my elected representatives (if only at the local level) and have seen the effects of said dalog played out in the writing of laws.
While you don't come right out and say it, you seem to believe that exactly the opposite is true. Why is this? Do you "feel" it's not a democracy because of what someone else "told" you?
"You hear News from the press but really it's the 'what they want you to hear' kind of news."
But I hear my news from a collection of various "thems" and know what their angles are.
"How come the so-called PRESS is all over the news when it comes to Iraq and finding clues to WMD's when, right here in the US"
Why do you seem to be limiting your definition of "press" to only those organizations talking about international relations? Heck, I can think of a few newspapers I read where that information doesn't even make the front page, simply because they don't focus on international politics.
"There is no coverage of how BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS are being taken away by the misnamed PATRIOT Act ?"
I seem to hear about that every few days on "All Things Considered" on NPR on my drive home from work. Recently, there was an article on the faild attempt to overturn CIPA in the federal courts. Today, the big news was the USSC overturning Texas' (and other states') anti-sodomy laws.
"Or how come Americans never got to see Iraqi people being shot by American soldiers during the invasion when every body else in the world saw ?"
Maybe because most US news organizations opted for the "embeded" option? And where is your evidence of deliberate government censorship of those pictures you claim "everybody else in the world saw?" Is there some PRC-esque jamming going on in the US that I'm not aware of?
"Or how, I never saw on the CNN's from page Greenspan's initial objections to the Bush administration's plan on tax cuts for the rich ?"
Perhaps if you got your news from something other than CNN once in a while... Or are we to believe that there is a government minder holding a gun to your head, forcing you to watch it?
"Those car chases and that dog rescued by the firemen from some rooftop is more interesting."
So sayeth Nielson. Whether or not 200 million people can be wrong doesn't matter much when those 200 million also happen to be paying customers. However, I fail to see how this equates with government-sponsored censorship. The only government sponsorship I see of television programs comes on PBS, and it tends to be the antithesis of the kind of television you're complaining about.
"By the same vein the CIA has tried to assassinate many a foreign national and leader"
I wouldn't call attempts to assassinate a chief of state (including the US president) "terrorism" because they are also commanders-in-chief of the military, making them valid military targets.
"Also by the same vein the US has manufacturered and use WOMD."
But we have not used them against our own civillian populace. And even when we did use them on someone else's civillian populace, those weapons were primarily meant to take out military targets.
"Also going one further, the US uses economic and military threat as means to ends"
There's a difference between the threat of force and the actual use of force. Gunboat diplomacy is still diplomacy.
And I fail to see how international economic measures can be called "terrorism" when they are invariably used against a country's government and not necesarily on the local populace.
"You cant say that one is and the other isnt when they have used the same methods."
I fail to see how they are the same methods.
"not because of the excuses we used to go there."
The "excuses" you mention were more for the UN than the US populace. The one and only true rule at the UN is that you can't slaughter your neighbors people, while tyrants slaughtering people within your own borders are given carte blanche to keep on doing what they do. Try and name one instance of intranational genocide since 1945 that the UN acted against.
Liberating someone else's people, no matter the reasons (be they selfish or altruistic), is a big no-no as far as the international community in general and the UN in particular are concerned. I don't believe either the president or anybody from the State Department ever used the word "liberation" before the UN while attempting to justify this recent war, and it's because they knew better.
"If we do not find anything then we invaded a sovereign foreign country on false pretenses."
So even attempting to liberate a people is a "false pretense?" Driving another nail into the coffin of altruism, I see...
"It looks very likely that Iran will be next,"
HAH!
The US is trying VERY hard not to touch Iran in any way, shape or form, especially in light of the recent student protests. If some in the State Department even happens to mention the word "Iran" in passing, they know that this will give credence to the religious hard-liners cries of "collaborationists" and ultimately hurt the students' movement. Yes, the US would like to see a more free Iran, but the best way this can be accomplished is to let the various internal movements run their course, and the best we can do to help them (like it or not) is to ignore it.
""The weapons we are searching for are being smuggled over your borders.""
One I haven't heard, but...
""You are now interfering in iraqi internal politics.""
Iranian-backed and -funded Shia groups (originally assembled to fight the Baath regime) are magically apearing within Iraq's borders and attempting to have their weight felt in any new government. What would you call that?
"Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is an attempt at thought control."
Um... huh? When did the definitions of "international" and "terrorst" get changed?
Did Sadam have a history of using "terror" (including, but not limited to, deliberately attacking civillian targets) to try to influence other people? Yes. Hence, he's a terrorist.
Did he apply this to countries outside his own borders? Yes. Hence, he's an international terrorist.
Where's the disconnect here?
"So is calling our actions there "liberation."
First off, it's not done yet. But even if it were, it would seem the Iraqis now have the ability to vocally protest their rulers that they didn't have before. Is the ability to organize and hold anti-government protests no longer considered a "liberty?" If it is, then how is granting this to people not "liberating" them?
(As an aside, for an example of what can happen when the US immediately pulls out of a country after liberating it from an oppresive government, see Cuba. Compare it to the Philippenes and Puerto Rico.)
"Thinking about it, you can easily see that the issue is not so cut and dried as "good guys" versus "axis of evil.""
But is it necesary for you to use some of the same "definition changing" tactics you accuse your antagonists of using to prove your point?
"Think about it! One-tenth of that amount would mean 471 Open Source programmers paid $100,000 for a year."
A year? And what happens if/when a new front in the "War on Terror" opens up in three months? Sure, this software won't be used on the front, but even REMFs get busier when Things Happen. The Army needs a solution that is either isntantaneous (not going to happen) or 100% backwards-compatible with their existing solution (what's WINE been up to?).
"And the POSIX compliance went away for W2K."
Not according to my MS documentation it isn't...
"Whereas Linux source code is entirely beyond China's reach?"
The difference is that the feds also have access to the Linux source. Not so with Windows.
"There's going to be a lot of IT people needed in the Army now to install and support all those systems."
IIRC, IBM operates a larger NT/2K/XP support team than even Microsoft.
"We have a Consitutional Amendment to respect."
See my reply to the first reply.
"Besides, Congress already passed a bill giving them perpetual pay raises."
Which means they don't understand the phrase "supreme law of the land." Again, see my reply to the first reply.
And you forget the way Congress has ignored it for six years.
You forgot about the riders attatched to raise their own salaries.
No no, you're confusing them with the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes again.
On the other hand, it would give folks like Moby more public domain works to choose samples from without running afoul of copyright laws.
"We can call it gnu/ter-prise."
Would you really want to use an application that has "gnu/ter" written on it?
Imagine a Beowulf...
"Yeah, people still use it."
That can't be true. Novell doesn't have its own Slashdot section. Heck, even BSD (which, I believe, stands for BSD, Still Dying) has it's own section. So nobody must use Novell
"Acclaim has to be licensed, and Nintendo may just be a little bitter."
Why? We're not exactly talking about Squaresoft here. Nintendo has been content to let Acclaim publish games of questionable quality on their platforms for decades, why should that change now?