Well said. Hasn't anyone ever had a really great record store clerk help them out? I have, so I appreciate the fact that some people want to work around music all day. Not because they're stupid, but because they like it.
Better still... organize a real "Return Fest '01". Everyone in your area can show up at the local Blockbuster Music, or Music Wherehouse or Camelot or wherever, each with 10-20 new CDs under their arm. At a predetirmined time, they can go stand in line and return their purchases, one-by-one. Get the media involved, too. The record industry assumes that people will eat whatever shit they provide. Looking at the sales of the latest "Now" compilation, they might be right.
Just crack the copy-protection (which many rippers already can do) by checking the "do not use CD error-correction" checkbox availible in some rippers/encoders. I can't remember whether it's to be checked or unchecked, you figure it out. Or, you could write a crack, and release it sans source. That way, it's protected by the DMCA. You can market it as a "sound quality enhancer" or some such. That way, the Industry must legally sit helplessly by as anyone with both brains and balls wrecks shop.
I saw an arcade machine BSOD one time. Can't remember which one, but it was a sit-down multiplayer jetski racing game.
Seriously, though, Windows works a lot better for embedded than people think. Remember Dreamcast? It's up to the embedded programmers to do a good job of customizing Windows for their chosen platform, and that's where problems usually happen. Most times, PHBs choose Windows for a project because of the shorter dev cycle. That right there indicates that there's a deadline crunch, which should explain the sloppy code.
We should all install it. I'm serious. If several million users pound the FBI with every keystroke, their servers will buckle, and they will be forced to admit that their plan didn't work. On national TV.
Microsoft has written several white papers of this sort already. Of course, they're Microsoft, so that means I can kiss my +2 bonus goodbye. Seriously, though.
People roguing IPs is the biggest problem. They feel that they should be allowed to have a static IP even though policy says no.
The policy doesn't say "no", the policy says "only if you pay". Big difference. Either way, it's bullshit. People are not "rouging IPs", because an IP has no intrinsic value. What they are doing is setting up nodes to serve data and offer static connection services. If that's what they want to do with their network connection, fine. The problem bandwidth providers have with that is that other media (leased line, T1, etc) are expensive because of their business potential (and cost to provider). Cable companies (which half the time are phone/wireless/ISPs anyway) want in on the server-hosting action. The difference: real bandwidth providers incur an expense for running lines, providing network redundancy, and sometimes security. Cable companies just piggyback head-end routers to piggyback off of existing infrastructure, while making you pay for the hardware to route out.
They are just trying to mint currency using the ignorance of the average user.
If you are limited to a given amount of bandwidth, what business is it of theirs what you decide to do with it? They stick their heads in the sand when it comes to worms, viruses, and other security risks of home networking, but instantly appear concerned about your goings-on when you try and get something for nothing. Rephrase that: nothing for nothing.
The wireless bandwidth "theft" is most laughable! How many neighbors are so friendly as to install aditional wireless access nodes onto a home network just to help someone else avoid spending money? Not only that, but providing an insecure data cloud to everyone within earshot of your house seems more like a liability than a benefit! Assuming this does happen on a large scale, we are in familiar anti-pirating territory: you can't have anything stolen from you if you still have it, or if it was never yours to begin with. Just look at the diagrams in the article. They all clearly show a lot of activity on the south side of the cable connection, but only a single line out. No one here is getting anything the internet didn't give us all for free.
Big words, coming from someone who does not even exist.
Your idea of "if they don't want it, they should make another revolution" is another one of the simpleton ideas that selfrighteous westerners come with from time to time.
Thanks for crediting me with that idea, genius. Unfortunately, it's been had already, by everyone from Ben Franklin to Karl Marx. Simpletons, those. It is ironically what made communism possible.
How would a population of civilians that cannot organise itself (controlled by police and secret police) fight against professional military with powerful weapons?
You mean like the American Revolution?
The Russian Revolution?
The French Revolution?
Read your history, holmes. It happens all the time. And when it does, the U.S. can feel free to back the revolutionaries.
And regarding it being called "the people's republic", all I can say is, if they need to put that in the name, it probably isn't.
I get it, like the United States of America. Er, wait.
Re:Not to sound like an asshole, but...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 2
Speaking as an orthodox Jew, I think you're a little off base when you compare our treatment of women with that of extremist muslim governments.
Of course I am, or that sentence would have started "Speaking as an extremist Muslim...". I was close, though, in that Jewish women are treated differently than Jewish men, and that's part of how you worship God.
Don't you feel just a tad hypocritical publicly spouting your opinion on such matters, while denying a billion and a half other fellow citizens of your country, mostly with dissenting views, the right to do the same?
Not even a little bit. For one, I'm American, so I do not share citizenry with the people f China, just like you. Unlike you, I don't feel like my way of life is so great that I would like to force it on a billion others.
Although I suppose some Bible-thumper like yourself
I'm not a Bible-thumper. I was just pointing out one of the many works of fiction and non-fiction (you decide which one the Bible is yourself) in which World Government fortells the downfall of civilization. Your poli-sci professor would probably feel the same way. Note: I am not a professor-thumper, either. Unless she's hot.
Of course, check your religion at the Chinese border.
Although I am Christian (Catholic, in fact), just then was the first time that was mentioned. I will keep in mind that when I live in another country, I will have to obey their rules. Thanks.
As long as you don't try to make my choices for me (i.e. make your religion one of the rules for everyone), we'll get along.
See how nice that is? When no one interferes with your way of life, including the UN?
If "Revelations" says that's a problem, then tough. I don't believe that fairy tale anyway.
Oh no? Well, in my goverment, you have to. Now all I need to do is get the backing of the UN (AKA "White people"), and my government becomes your government. Neat, huh? The point is this: if you don't believe in the "fairy tale" that is the Bible, then what makes you believe anything is objectively right or wrong? The UN? Bullshit. The UN is less than 100 years old, and made up of people, just like you and me, except with nicer cars. To be honest, I don't know for sure that each and every Chinese person likes their government the way it is. Fortunately, I don't have to, or else I would never have time for laundry. The reason I don't is because that's not my job, nor is it the job of any or all Americans, or the UN. China has a rich history of great thinking. Let them decide what lives up to their local standards of decency, and save us all a whole lot of time, trouble and money. Not to mention the loss of life that occurs whenever Americans decide somebody needs our advice.
And yes, I agree with the other poster, we need a basic human rights charter and democratically elected governments in every nation on earth. In fact, I'd like to see a constitutional style global government evolve out of the UN-- again, where we get direct votes on our representatives and executive branch leaders.
I'm trying not to get pissed off, but I'm pretty sure you just suggested a World Government. I'm not trying to be mean, but most political scientists, and all of Revelations puts foward that this will signal the beginning of the end of the world. I'm all for a liberal arts education, but c'mon, get your head out of your ass! The merits of one style of government over another are not even at issue here. It's about telling a culture how to run itself. On the individual scale, it sounds like a good idea. On a global scale, it's a recipe for a bigass bullshit croissant. Telling the Chinese that democracy is their obligation is like telling them that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or that the red book is for pussies. You just can't do it, and expect them to submit. Democracy is working out great in some ways, but in otheres it's just as evil as socialists have made it out to be. To some cultures getting into heaven is more important than voting, or women's doubles tennis. Who are we to tell them they're wrong? Sheesh.
Let me start out by saying that your post is well written, and I liked reading it, even though I disagree with a lot. Your example is powerful, and forces me to say something very unpopular, but accepted deep-down as true by everyone:
Women and men are different, and have different social and biological capacities
I know, I know, now I'm a chauvenist. Before you get mad, just look at our society: Women are allowed to wear skirts to work, men are not. Men are allowed to go topless on the street, women are not (except in some parts of California, but I'm pretty sure that there's a part of California that lets you do anything you want). Women get maternity leave, men do not. I'm not making a judgement on who's better, just stating something obvious, which many people seem to forget. In every religon on Earth more than a couple hundred years old, women function in a different capacity than men. Their ability to directly reproduce has allowed them certain priveleges and come with no small consequences. There are some (myself included) that would argue that America's women's movement has done as much harm as good to the status of women, and the place of both men and women in the family. Many think that this recent movement has contributed largely to the breakup of the family unit altogether. As people, our primary function is to form families and raise children. This is true on a much deeper level than the social one. It is a biological necessity for maintaining the species. With all this importance placed on reproduction, is it that suprising that different genders have different roles in society?
I don't think it would be a lot of fun to have to wear restrictive clothing, sure. On the other hand, it's probably not all that great when your mom is only 13 years older than you, and you don't know who your dad is. The Afghans are merely observing a millenia-old cultural distinction that seems extreme to us because we have the WNBA.
it is still our obligation to comment and act upon clear issues of moral right or wrong (as I would say slavery is, whether of blacks or women).
See, you kill yourself in the parentheses. I agree that owning another person is wrong. I do not believe that being devoted to your spouse is wrong. Who wins? You, because you have a jet bomber and read left-to-right? Bullshit. I say neither of us win, and the Afghanis figure it out for themselves.
That said, here is the difference: an Amish or Orthodox Jewish Woman in the US or Canada or Sweden (or Israel or any democratic free country) can choose wether or not to observe their religion.
OK, but what about China or Saudi Arabia, or rural India, or Indonesia, or on and on and fucking on. The above document is bullshit. For instance:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Not if you live in a monarchy, like about 1/8 of the world's population! Even Denmark has a king (uh...I think...), which renders that statement retarded.
However, any woman who does not want to should be able to choose not to.
Just like I should be able to choose whether to allow my balls to swing freely from the zipper of my jeans. Unfortunately (fortunately for everyone else), that would violate (this part is important) the local standards for decency. Exchange "balls" for "anything", "jeans" for "burqa", and "I" for "women of most mid-east countries", and you'll see what I'm saying.
We aren't forcing anything but the freedom to choose on opposed people.
I'll assume you mean "oppressed" here. My point is that you can't even force choice on anyone. Some peoples (intentional plural) have decided that they would rather go to heaven than wear shorts, or even allow their wives to wear shorts. That is their business. For the most part, even Muslim women feel the same way. Islam was not born on the backs of an army, but born in the words of someone considered to be a prophet from God.
but I am confident that it had little popular support or basis.
It certainly had enough to be called "The People's Republic". The Great Leap Foward (1957-1960) was a terrible failure, but required the work of millions in order to starve millions to death. No one's saying Mao and his revolution were all that great, but you can't deny the millions of Red Books in the hands of millions of Chinese.
Indeed, you might do a little probing and discover that 'revolution' was in fact perpetrated by the government itself.
Maybe I do need to probe some more, because everything I've found so far seems to point to a civil war in China which brought about the revolution. I don't think that was in the current government's best interests, considering that they were fighting off an invasion from the Japanese at the same time.
And I'm not sure that *I* would assume that the average Chinese wants to live under the current system. That seems like a big stretch...
Maybe to you, but considering the relative peace inside a nation of more than 1 billion, I don't think it's a stretch. You can't call it a regime when it has survived 80 years, and several changes in leadership.
I just want everyone to think carefully before they condemn something.
Exactly. Just because something's un-American doesn't mean it's wrong. Decriminalization of drugs, 6 weeks vacation, paternity leave, and socialized healthcare are all un-American, but probably good ideas.
Of those, what percentage do you think are operating without blocking software?
Probably around 0%, because China means business.
By the way, when you said that "it is their country," I think you needed to be more specific. I think you meant to say "it is their regimes country."
Either way, notice the possesive "their". Remember the Cultural Revolution? Well, probably not unless you're old, but these people chose this form of government. It is to be assumed that this is what they want, or at least that this is not undesirable enough to spawn another revolution a la USSR. I say let the Chinese government govern their people however they want. They are a major power, not an island dictatorship. They seem to be doing some things right, and they haven't fucked up Hong Kong yet. "Information wnats to be free" is more accurately "We wish information was free". Unfortunately (or not), it can't happen everywhere.
creating a set of libraries written in SQL, which are called from C programs.
Stored procedures.
Re:Not to sound like an asshole, but...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
ARRRRGGGHH! The Taliban is on the way out, people! We're not talking about the Taliban! We're talking about post-Taliban society in Afghanistan! Read the article, then read the posts after it, then kiss my ass. Then spend some time with your family this joyous season. Then kiss my ass again.
Re:Not to sound like an asshole, but...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
by the North imposing its will on the South via invasion
The North of what? The South of what? Yeah, America. I never said it didn't take war, and that everybody group-hugged away slavery (which was only one of the issues behind that war). I said it was a domestic issue, and I was right.
Re:Not to sound like an asshole, but...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
I don't know why I feel the need to respond to an AC. My girlfriend says I argue too much, so maybe that's it. As far as wild assumptions, I'm a pretty wild and crazy dude, so look out! Assuming that the slaves were freed by an act of law is probably way off, I'm sure. It was probably the emancipation fairies. I never said anything about South Africa, so rock on with your bad self. I never mentioned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, just the Cold War in general. I really meant Korea, to be honest. Saw a great PBS special on that. Really informative. Oh, also, my grandpa died in that war. He was a jet pilot. As far as the King and his 7000 princes, I got some know-how on that from another PBS special. I should really pledge to them next pledge drive.
Re:Not to sound like an asshole, but...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
If your only issue is whether the people in these places want change, that's an easy question to answer: they do, go visit one of these countries sometime and ask.
No! I won't go around taking surveys on people's happiness worldwide! This is getting ridiculous. The Taliban is gone. People have shaved their beards and dug up their TVs. Great. You'll notice that women still cover themselves head-to-foot, and don't leave the house alone. This is true of many mid-east countries, and several Asian ones as well. We cannot go around "correcting" other people's religious beliefs! My point was not wether or not they would rather live that way. Most Catholics would rather do a lot of fun stuff. That doesn't mean such practices fit within their moral standards, or those of their peers.
the U.S. has remained too hands-off in its foreign policy, only getting involved when it has a clear, direct strategic interest in a particular situation.
Yeah, no shit. My mom had a saying: "choose your battles". This is nothing new in U.S. foriegn policy, just like it's nothing new in parenting or business. Many would argue that this attitude is what's let us become as powerful as we are today. No one sees this as capricious. Everyone knows we bitch about civil rights, and fight over oil. The reason countries even expect our help is because of our hands-on policies of the past. Why doesn't anyone get upset at Denmark for staying out of their business? Because they always do! They're Denmark!
A policy based more clearly on things like human rights interest could actually go a long way towards improving America's reputation in the rest of the world,[...]
You mean the tiny portion of the world that hasn't already moved here. Everyone wants to be American. Our reputation is bad because we insist on meddling in other people's religious belief systems, when we don't even have one. That irony has not been lost on the Eastern world.
[...]since America could certainly get international backing and cooperation for such a policy.
Not in your wildest dreams. The last time we got international backing for anything (before 9/11) was when the Axis Powers were kicking ass worldwide. Russia never even declared war on Japan until both bombs had decimated the island. 3 years after Pearl Harbor. The problem is that every country has different ideas on what makes human rights. Unless you'd like to usher in an Orwellian World Government, we need to start leaving this stuff alone.
Since this keylogger is passed as a virus, wouldn't it be defeated by the standard anti-virus software we're already using?
Even more insidious, would AV companies install backdoors in their protection software to allow for Magic Lantern?
If this Magic Lantern is really spread as a virus, and costs the US economy thousands of millions, just like CODE RED, who is responsible for paying damages? The FBI?
Who can garuantee that Magic Lantern will wait until you start PGP? Can't the FBI log every keystroke? How fucking scary is that?
Is it illegal to detect and destroy Magic Lantern? Would that be considered obstructing justice?
How long until a "clean" program, ala Nimdaclean is developed, and will possesion of that be illegal?
What will happen when America goes back to normal? Who will clean FBI software from our machines?
Without making any judgements as to the fucked-uppedness of this, there are so many logistics problems that I can't imagine this getting widespread use.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. Hasn't anyone ever had a really great record store clerk help them out? I have, so I appreciate the fact that some people want to work around music all day. Not because they're stupid, but because they like it.
Better still... organize a real "Return Fest '01". Everyone in your area can show up at the local Blockbuster Music, or Music Wherehouse or Camelot or wherever, each with 10-20 new CDs under their arm. At a predetirmined time, they can go stand in line and return their purchases, one-by-one. Get the media involved, too. The record industry assumes that people will eat whatever shit they provide. Looking at the sales of the latest "Now" compilation, they might be right.
Just crack the copy-protection (which many rippers already can do) by checking the "do not use CD error-correction" checkbox availible in some rippers/encoders. I can't remember whether it's to be checked or unchecked, you figure it out. Or, you could write a crack, and release it sans source. That way, it's protected by the DMCA. You can market it as a "sound quality enhancer" or some such. That way, the Industry must legally sit helplessly by as anyone with both brains and balls wrecks shop.
I saw an arcade machine BSOD one time. Can't remember which one, but it was a sit-down multiplayer jetski racing game.
Seriously, though, Windows works a lot better for embedded than people think. Remember Dreamcast? It's up to the embedded programmers to do a good job of customizing Windows for their chosen platform, and that's where problems usually happen. Most times, PHBs choose Windows for a project because of the shorter dev cycle. That right there indicates that there's a deadline crunch, which should explain the sloppy code.
How about this?:
We should all install it. I'm serious. If several million users pound the FBI with every keystroke, their servers will buckle, and they will be forced to admit that their plan didn't work. On national TV.
Microsoft has written several white papers of this sort already. Of course, they're Microsoft, so that means I can kiss my +2 bonus goodbye. Seriously, though.
People roguing IPs is the biggest problem. They feel that they should be allowed to have a static IP even though policy says no.
The policy doesn't say "no", the policy says "only if you pay". Big difference. Either way, it's bullshit. People are not "rouging IPs", because an IP has no intrinsic value. What they are doing is setting up nodes to serve data and offer static connection services. If that's what they want to do with their network connection, fine. The problem bandwidth providers have with that is that other media (leased line, T1, etc) are expensive because of their business potential (and cost to provider). Cable companies (which half the time are phone/wireless/ISPs anyway) want in on the server-hosting action. The difference: real bandwidth providers incur an expense for running lines, providing network redundancy, and sometimes security. Cable companies just piggyback head-end routers to piggyback off of existing infrastructure, while making you pay for the hardware to route out.
They are just trying to mint currency using the ignorance of the average user.
If you are limited to a given amount of bandwidth, what business is it of theirs what you decide to do with it? They stick their heads in the sand when it comes to worms, viruses, and other security risks of home networking, but instantly appear concerned about your goings-on when you try and get something for nothing. Rephrase that: nothing for nothing.
The wireless bandwidth "theft" is most laughable! How many neighbors are so friendly as to install aditional wireless access nodes onto a home network just to help someone else avoid spending money? Not only that, but providing an insecure data cloud to everyone within earshot of your house seems more like a liability than a benefit! Assuming this does happen on a large scale, we are in familiar anti-pirating territory: you can't have anything stolen from you if you still have it, or if it was never yours to begin with. Just look at the diagrams in the article. They all clearly show a lot of activity on the south side of the cable connection, but only a single line out. No one here is getting anything the internet didn't give us all for free.
Someone please mod this up, +1, Funny!
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Big words, coming from someone who does not even exist.
Your idea of "if they don't want it, they should make another revolution" is another one of the simpleton ideas that selfrighteous westerners come with from time to time.
Thanks for crediting me with that idea, genius. Unfortunately, it's been had already, by everyone from Ben Franklin to Karl Marx. Simpletons, those. It is ironically what made communism possible.
How would a population of civilians that cannot organise itself (controlled by police and secret police) fight against professional military with powerful weapons?
You mean like the American Revolution?
The Russian Revolution?
The French Revolution?
Read your history, holmes. It happens all the time. And when it does, the U.S. can feel free to back the revolutionaries.
And regarding it being called "the people's republic", all I can say is, if they need to put that in the name, it probably isn't.
I get it, like the United States of America. Er, wait.
Speaking as an orthodox Jew, I think you're a little off base when you compare our treatment of women with that of extremist muslim governments.
Of course I am, or that sentence would have started "Speaking as an extremist Muslim...". I was close, though, in that Jewish women are treated differently than Jewish men, and that's part of how you worship God.
Don't you feel just a tad hypocritical publicly spouting your opinion on such matters, while denying a billion and a half other fellow citizens of your country, mostly with dissenting views, the right to do the same?
Not even a little bit. For one, I'm American, so I do not share citizenry with the people f China, just like you. Unlike you, I don't feel like my way of life is so great that I would like to force it on a billion others.
Although I suppose some Bible-thumper like yourself
I'm not a Bible-thumper. I was just pointing out one of the many works of fiction and non-fiction (you decide which one the Bible is yourself) in which World Government fortells the downfall of civilization. Your poli-sci professor would probably feel the same way. Note: I am not a professor-thumper, either. Unless she's hot.
Of course, check your religion at the Chinese border.
Although I am Christian (Catholic, in fact), just then was the first time that was mentioned. I will keep in mind that when I live in another country, I will have to obey their rules. Thanks.
As long as you don't try to make my choices for me (i.e. make your religion one of the rules for everyone), we'll get along.
See how nice that is? When no one interferes with your way of life, including the UN?
If "Revelations" says that's a problem, then tough. I don't believe that fairy tale anyway.
Oh no? Well, in my goverment, you have to. Now all I need to do is get the backing of the UN (AKA "White people"), and my government becomes your government. Neat, huh? The point is this: if you don't believe in the "fairy tale" that is the Bible, then what makes you believe anything is objectively right or wrong? The UN? Bullshit. The UN is less than 100 years old, and made up of people, just like you and me, except with nicer cars. To be honest, I don't know for sure that each and every Chinese person likes their government the way it is. Fortunately, I don't have to, or else I would never have time for laundry. The reason I don't is because that's not my job, nor is it the job of any or all Americans, or the UN. China has a rich history of great thinking. Let them decide what lives up to their local standards of decency, and save us all a whole lot of time, trouble and money. Not to mention the loss of life that occurs whenever Americans decide somebody needs our advice.
And yes, I agree with the other poster, we need a basic human rights charter and democratically elected governments in every nation on earth. In fact, I'd like to see a constitutional style global government evolve out of the UN-- again, where we get direct votes on our representatives and executive branch leaders.
I'm trying not to get pissed off, but I'm pretty sure you just suggested a World Government. I'm not trying to be mean, but most political scientists, and all of Revelations puts foward that this will signal the beginning of the end of the world. I'm all for a liberal arts education, but c'mon, get your head out of your ass! The merits of one style of government over another are not even at issue here. It's about telling a culture how to run itself. On the individual scale, it sounds like a good idea. On a global scale, it's a recipe for a bigass bullshit croissant. Telling the Chinese that democracy is their obligation is like telling them that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or that the red book is for pussies. You just can't do it, and expect them to submit. Democracy is working out great in some ways, but in otheres it's just as evil as socialists have made it out to be. To some cultures getting into heaven is more important than voting, or women's doubles tennis. Who are we to tell them they're wrong? Sheesh.
Let me start out by saying that your post is well written, and I liked reading it, even though I disagree with a lot. Your example is powerful, and forces me to say something very unpopular, but accepted deep-down as true by everyone:
Women and men are different, and have different social and biological capacities
I know, I know, now I'm a chauvenist. Before you get mad, just look at our society: Women are allowed to wear skirts to work, men are not. Men are allowed to go topless on the street, women are not (except in some parts of California, but I'm pretty sure that there's a part of California that lets you do anything you want). Women get maternity leave, men do not. I'm not making a judgement on who's better, just stating something obvious, which many people seem to forget. In every religon on Earth more than a couple hundred years old, women function in a different capacity than men. Their ability to directly reproduce has allowed them certain priveleges and come with no small consequences. There are some (myself included) that would argue that America's women's movement has done as much harm as good to the status of women, and the place of both men and women in the family. Many think that this recent movement has contributed largely to the breakup of the family unit altogether. As people, our primary function is to form families and raise children. This is true on a much deeper level than the social one. It is a biological necessity for maintaining the species. With all this importance placed on reproduction, is it that suprising that different genders have different roles in society?
I don't think it would be a lot of fun to have to wear restrictive clothing, sure. On the other hand, it's probably not all that great when your mom is only 13 years older than you, and you don't know who your dad is. The Afghans are merely observing a millenia-old cultural distinction that seems extreme to us because we have the WNBA.
it is still our obligation to comment and act upon clear issues of moral right or wrong (as I would say slavery is, whether of blacks or women).
See, you kill yourself in the parentheses. I agree that owning another person is wrong. I do not believe that being devoted to your spouse is wrong. Who wins? You, because you have a jet bomber and read left-to-right? Bullshit. I say neither of us win, and the Afghanis figure it out for themselves.
First off, here's the UN declaration of Human Rights, for anybody that's interested.
That said, here is the difference: an Amish or Orthodox Jewish Woman in the US or Canada or Sweden (or Israel or any democratic free country) can choose wether or not to observe their religion.
OK, but what about China or Saudi Arabia, or rural India, or Indonesia, or on and on and fucking on. The above document is bullshit. For instance:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Not if you live in a monarchy, like about 1/8 of the world's population! Even Denmark has a king (uh...I think...), which renders that statement retarded.
However, any woman who does not want to should be able to choose not to.
Just like I should be able to choose whether to allow my balls to swing freely from the zipper of my jeans. Unfortunately (fortunately for everyone else), that would violate (this part is important) the local standards for decency. Exchange "balls" for "anything", "jeans" for "burqa", and "I" for "women of most mid-east countries", and you'll see what I'm saying.
We aren't forcing anything but the freedom to choose on opposed people.
I'll assume you mean "oppressed" here. My point is that you can't even force choice on anyone. Some peoples (intentional plural) have decided that they would rather go to heaven than wear shorts, or even allow their wives to wear shorts. That is their business. For the most part, even Muslim women feel the same way. Islam was not born on the backs of an army, but born in the words of someone considered to be a prophet from God.
but I am confident that it had little popular support or basis.
It certainly had enough to be called "The People's Republic". The Great Leap Foward (1957-1960) was a terrible failure, but required the work of millions in order to starve millions to death. No one's saying Mao and his revolution were all that great, but you can't deny the millions of Red Books in the hands of millions of Chinese.
Indeed, you might do a little probing and discover that 'revolution' was in fact perpetrated by the government itself.
Maybe I do need to probe some more, because everything I've found so far seems to point to a civil war in China which brought about the revolution. I don't think that was in the current government's best interests, considering that they were fighting off an invasion from the Japanese at the same time.
And I'm not sure that *I* would assume that the average Chinese wants to live under the current system. That seems like a big stretch...
Maybe to you, but considering the relative peace inside a nation of more than 1 billion, I don't think it's a stretch. You can't call it a regime when it has survived 80 years, and several changes in leadership.
I just want everyone to think carefully before they condemn something.
Exactly. Just because something's un-American doesn't mean it's wrong. Decriminalization of drugs, 6 weeks vacation, paternity leave, and socialized healthcare are all un-American, but probably good ideas.
Of those, what percentage do you think are operating without blocking software?
Probably around 0%, because China means business.
By the way, when you said that "it is their country," I think you needed to be more specific. I think you meant to say "it is their regimes country."
Either way, notice the possesive "their". Remember the Cultural Revolution? Well, probably not unless you're old, but these people chose this form of government. It is to be assumed that this is what they want, or at least that this is not undesirable enough to spawn another revolution a la USSR. I say let the Chinese government govern their people however they want. They are a major power, not an island dictatorship. They seem to be doing some things right, and they haven't fucked up Hong Kong yet. "Information wnats to be free" is more accurately "We wish information was free". Unfortunately (or not), it can't happen everywhere.
creating a set of libraries written in SQL, which are called from C programs.
Stored procedures.
ARRRRGGGHH! The Taliban is on the way out, people! We're not talking about the Taliban! We're talking about post-Taliban society in Afghanistan! Read the article, then read the posts after it, then kiss my ass. Then spend some time with your family this joyous season. Then kiss my ass again.
by the North imposing its will on the South via invasion
The North of what? The South of what? Yeah, America. I never said it didn't take war, and that everybody group-hugged away slavery (which was only one of the issues behind that war). I said it was a domestic issue, and I was right.
I don't know why I feel the need to respond to an AC. My girlfriend says I argue too much, so maybe that's it. As far as wild assumptions, I'm a pretty wild and crazy dude, so look out! Assuming that the slaves were freed by an act of law is probably way off, I'm sure. It was probably the emancipation fairies. I never said anything about South Africa, so rock on with your bad self. I never mentioned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, just the Cold War in general. I really meant Korea, to be honest. Saw a great PBS special on that. Really informative. Oh, also, my grandpa died in that war. He was a jet pilot. As far as the King and his 7000 princes, I got some know-how on that from another PBS special. I should really pledge to them next pledge drive.
If your only issue is whether the people in these places want change, that's an easy question to answer: they do, go visit one of these countries sometime and ask.
No! I won't go around taking surveys on people's happiness worldwide! This is getting ridiculous. The Taliban is gone. People have shaved their beards and dug up their TVs. Great. You'll notice that women still cover themselves head-to-foot, and don't leave the house alone. This is true of many mid-east countries, and several Asian ones as well. We cannot go around "correcting" other people's religious beliefs! My point was not wether or not they would rather live that way. Most Catholics would rather do a lot of fun stuff. That doesn't mean such practices fit within their moral standards, or those of their peers.
the U.S. has remained too hands-off in its foreign policy, only getting involved when it has a clear, direct strategic interest in a particular situation.
Yeah, no shit. My mom had a saying: "choose your battles". This is nothing new in U.S. foriegn policy, just like it's nothing new in parenting or business. Many would argue that this attitude is what's let us become as powerful as we are today. No one sees this as capricious. Everyone knows we bitch about civil rights, and fight over oil. The reason countries even expect our help is because of our hands-on policies of the past. Why doesn't anyone get upset at Denmark for staying out of their business? Because they always do! They're Denmark!
A policy based more clearly on things like human rights interest could actually go a long way towards improving America's reputation in the rest of the world,[...]
You mean the tiny portion of the world that hasn't already moved here. Everyone wants to be American. Our reputation is bad because we insist on meddling in other people's religious belief systems, when we don't even have one. That irony has not been lost on the Eastern world.
[...]since America could certainly get international backing and cooperation for such a policy.
Not in your wildest dreams. The last time we got international backing for anything (before 9/11) was when the Axis Powers were kicking ass worldwide. Russia never even declared war on Japan until both bombs had decimated the island. 3 years after Pearl Harbor. The problem is that every country has different ideas on what makes human rights. Unless you'd like to usher in an Orwellian World Government, we need to start leaving this stuff alone.
Without making any judgements as to the fucked-uppedness of this, there are so many logistics problems that I can't imagine this getting widespread use.