this is just one of the many publicity stunts pulled by ISU over the years. In Indiana the joke is ISU == I Screwed Up... it's not a good school at all, and they should put more effort in improving their academics than in trying to grab headlines with some dumb 21st century education initiative after another.
No scientist living claims there's a way to stop global warming, only (perhaps) to reduce it somewhat.
You can stop it by deploying a large structure in space that reflects some of the sun's light... or you can scrub greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere... or you can fill the atmosphere with dust like after a large volcanic eruption or a nuclear winter.
There are solutions, but no money has been spent on developing them. This is because the policy makers either are incompetent or don't really care.
I don't know what sort of science fiction you've been reading, but global warming isn't going to make the Earth uninhabitable, or even remotely so. That sort of thing is nothing more than alarmist bullshit.
there are models which predict a run-away greenhouse effect. basically stuff like: north pole melts in summer, this stops deep ocean currents, this then warms continental shelf, which release lots of frozen methane into the atmosphere, frozen methane in the tundra is also released, the methane accelerates the global warming (methane is 2x as effective as CO2 or water in global warming). With all of this extra heat in the system, the climate could reach a new equilibrium at a much higher temperature than currently. People say this is far-fetched just because they don't want to come across as a crackpot, but the fact is depending on what the real values are for things that we don't know well enough to model right now, this could happen... and we don't know enough to exclude it.
So the question becomes, why the hell aren't policy makers pushing to improve the climate models and to launch satellites to measure the unknown parameters so that we know if this really is a possibility?? Such an effort would cost as much as one or two shuttle launches.
depression is a good thing because it allows you to be creative" is fashionable nonsense that I believe has done more harm than good.
I'm talking from personal experience. Depression, despair, etc are places where you can find amazing creativity of both artistic and scientific nature. I would gladly relive my darkest times because I know they are what made me who I am.
I also have known several people who have lost all creativity after being medicated... because there are no highs and no lows just mediocrity.
Yes, some people need to be medicated... but there should be a plan to take them off medication and to teach them how to monitor their illness if they so choose. Instead, it you don't want to be medicated, you are effectively denied treatment by all but crackpot scientologists.
look into child development. many four year olds don't socialize well because they are delayed developmentally. It's very normal... and if you spent any time with four year olds, you would know it's very common. The problem is know-it-all wanna be child psychologists who project their own personal fears of rejection onto four year olds.
It's ok to be introverted... introverts don't feel like they are missing out by being excluded for social cliques. I know because I am one. I come from a long line of people who really just want to go live in a cabin in the woods and be left alone. It's genetic, and it's not a disorder.
The biggest concern is that we NEED socially withdrawn people in a society, it's often withdrawl that leads to creativity, be it artistic, scientific, or even social. We shouldn't be too quick to try to "cure" them, since social withdrawl is part of their personality.
Because most of the time social withdrawal is a sign of mental health issues. Are you going to try and prove otherwise? Or were you simply being argumentive and philosophical?
You're a dumbass. dumbity-dumb-dumb-dumbass.
Why the hell is bullying not more of sign of mental health issues?? Do bullies ever turn out to be healthy adults? Dumbass. Yet how many introverted kids, not only turn out fine, but end up doing great things... like say Abraham Lincoln? Dumbass.
Shit I knew smarty-pants know-it-alls like you in school... and I'd kick their dumb-ass dumbasses and make them eat dirt. Shit, how can you be such a know-it-all, if you don't even think about the things you think you know?? ya know?
Most parents feel that they would like their children to do better than they have done and not make the same mistakes they have made. Please take the advice of your children's teachers and spend more time focusing on enabling your children to improve on their weaknesses.
or... I could just let my kids grow up to be who they are rather than forcing them do do things that don't fit in their character. My extended family is full of introverts who would rather be alone than the center of attention. There is nothing wrong with being introverted. Quoth Socrates: "Know Thyself"
You can force your kids to 'pad their stats' if you want... and you'll probably teach them to focus on their inadequacies rather than their strengths. My kids will know who they are, and what they like to do.... and they'll be happier, more well-adjusted adults as a result.
Why it always assumed that social withdrawal is a sign of individual sickness - but not the group itself which should stand in judgement?
You tell it, brother!!
You don't have to be outgoing type-A to be mentally healthy... or even what society considers mentally healthy to do well in this world. I recently heard an NPR story about how they've started to screen high school students with a questionnaire so that they can medicate people before they go off and kill themselves... but when I heard the 'warning signs' that they were looking for, I realized that they would have flagged me when I was in high school, and they would have tried to persuade my parents to medicate me....but the thing is that these medications kill all of your creativity (because lets face it creativity is often driven by depression and despair). I am positive that if I had been medicated I would not have accomplished even 10% of what I have accomplished in my life... things I have accomplished with my creativity and with a work ethic born of many, many failures. Sure, maybe I would have had more friends, and I probably would have gone to the prom, and maybe even gotten laid in high school... but I wouldn't have achieved nearly as much, and I probably wouldn't have been able to land my wife (who looks like a supermodel, but is also super-smart, and very funny).
Now my kids are in pre-school, and the teachers are concerned because they don't socialize well and have poor coordination... yeah my four year old reads at a first grade level... but they just see that as a sign of parents pushing too hard (we don't push him at all by the way, he's just a very curious kid). They want us to stop teaching him reading and math and try to push him more into sports and socializing... But I say, so what if he wants to be nerdy.. let him be nerdy.
I don't know about that... I was reading the site linked in the article and found this blurb... and other googling revealed many accounts that Ub Iwerks was the real creator of Oswald and Mickey... not Walt. (http://www.vitaphone.org/flip.html)
MGM's first sound cartoon character was Flip The Frog. Flip The Frog was created by Ub Iwerks. Ub Iwerks was the CREATOR of Mickey Mouse and had drawned the early Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphony cartoons. (Walt Disney didn't know how to draw and never learned. Take a look at some of the Laugh O Grams that he drew and you'll see how poor his drawing skills were. You can look at the Mickey Mouse poster on the bottom of this page and see what it says: A Walt Disney Comic...Drawn by Ub Iwerks. ) Disney propaganda would have you believe otherwise but the case can be settled by looking at the newspapers, advertisements and magazines of the era. Below you can see a clipping from a 1930 German newspaper hailing the new creation of Ub Iwerks, the creator of Mickey Mouse. Ub Iwerks had actually drawn a frog and his girlfriend in the Silly Symphony cartoons. In one of the last SIlly Symphonies that Ub Iwerks drew the foucs of the film were these two frogs. This cartoon is called Summer. Ub Iwerks with the help of Pat Powers started this new cartoon series after leaving Disney. The first cartoon that Ub Iwerks made for the series was also the first COLOR sound cartoon that was ever made. (Even though Disney would have you believe other wise. Incidentally the first sound cartoon was not the Mickey Mouse cartoon called "Steamboat Willie" but an Aesop's Fable which Disney had seen and copied in 1928 called "DINNER TIME". The first Flip The Frog cartoon had a mouse playing a violin and you can see above. When reading books on so-called animation history some SOB Disney propagandists even refer to the mouse in FIDDLESTICKS as a copy of Walt's Disney Mickey Mouse! Will Disney ever stop taking credit from other people who deserve it?
Steve jobs is great friends with Roy Disney, Jr. who has been a dissident against the Disney board for years (even suing them). I wonder if his stakes plus Jobs post-merge stake would be enough for them to take over... Or if their combined stake would be enough to help Apple buy Disney:) One thing's for sure, if jobs gets control over Disney, Disneyland is going to be insanely great. Can you imagine what the RDF would do? You'll shit your pants....but seriously, Jobs in control of Disney would put Apple in a great place for the upcoming iPod vs. Sony battle.
Or maybe you could have given specifics in the first place. Lazy bastard.
yeah, I'm lazy... my original posts has generated tons of replies and thread with ppl asking the same thing over and over again and apparently not reading the other threads or my original post.... c'est slashdot, and I'll be damned if I'm going to write a term paper for someone too lazy to use google and the wikipedia.
Call me when you come up with something that's comparable in size, scope, and false justifications.
France: Angola, Vietnam (probably more, I just don't know a lot of French history) From American history: War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, Vietnam (BTW, If you are American, there is _no_ excuse for not knowing about these wars)
One interesting note is that these wars had untruthful justifications, but it appears that the justifications for the Iraq war were truthful, but wrong. So we are left deciding which is more important: honesty or competence. And the Iraqi occupation is incompetent, but doesn't appear to be imperialistic (like the above wars)... Hell, it looks like the US may end up with a pro-Iranian government in Iraq.
So the Iraq war is different, but not in the ways you think. Stop pulling your opinions out of your ass, and spend some time researching them.
Damn use google, or better yet read the news once in a while.
Some French neo-colonial wars, under various justifications about protecting people from this and that but really about maintaining French influence over the government in power.
Central African Republic Intervention (September, 1979)--France organized and aided a coup to overthrow Emperor Jean-Bodel Bokassa. French troops were flown in from Europe and installed former President David Dacko.
New Caledonian Uprising (1984-1985)
Gabon Intervention (May, 1990)
Central African Republic Intervention (April, 1996)--French troops put down a C.A.R. army mutiny.
Central African Republic Intervention (May, 1996)--French troops put down another C.A.R. army mutiny.
Central African Republic Intervention (Nov. 1996-Jan. 1997)--French troops put down yet another C.A.R. army mutiny.
Ivory Coast (Cote de Ivorie) Intervention (2003-Present)-France intervened to bring a halt to the civil war in its former colony. During one clash, the French military avenged the death of several troops by destroying the small Ivory Coast air force as it sat on the ground.
The US 1989 Panama invasion was ostensibly about drugs but was really about the Panama canal. The US Grenada invasion is also questionable.
Perhaps Iraq is so controversial because the US was upfront with its intentions rather than searching for some pretext. The US just said we want a regime change, here's why, we're not looking for some specific action to provoke the invasion, we're going now.
Elected government is no panacea. Elected governments seem to be just as likely to go to war as non-elected ones, if history is any indication.
Sure your generic democracy can wage war (just look at Napoleon)... But look what the US did to Japan, Italy, and Germany. These countries are structured in such a way that they would have a difficult time waging a war of aggression. You need a parliamentary system with a weak executive. Such countries tend to be stable, prosperous, and non-aggressive.
The US and France are pretty much the only democracies with a strong executive to survive any length of time without becoming a dictatorship. The US worked out pretty much only because of the popularity of a play about Cincinatus among the founders, and France worked out mostly because of persistence and 'Frenchness' that lead them to keep trying until it worked.
I have, and I don't have a clue what you're talking about. As I said, there's nothing stopping elected governments from going to war - they've done it plenty of times in the past.
I was referring to how slights from several hundred years ago can come back as genocide against the descendants of those who perpetrated the original infraction. The US can't just sit back and do nothing when it has an enemy or else it will be savaged by its enemies when its power inevitably wanes. I figure I'll see the decline of American power within my lifetime... the large military is just not sustainable under economic competition from China and India.
We need to further friendships with emerging powers like India and Brazil, and take down enemies like Iran and Syria while our power is at its apex. And when we take down a country we can't install a dictatorship (like the US did under the days of RealPolitick), we need to try and set up a Japan or Germany. It is unlikely that Japan, Italy, or Germany will every attack the US is retaliation for WWII. And it is very likely that at least one would help defend the US if attacked.
+2 insightful... then -4 overrated (why overrated... because that is less likely to be meta-moderated unfair). This sort of moderator abuse is become more and more common on slashdot lately. If people keep abusing the moderation system to silence opposing views, then it will destroy the freewheeling forum of slashdot at its best and turn it into some sort of lame clique.
Here's an idea... if you don't like my opinions, use the friend system to hide my comments. If you don't like one of my posts, you won't really get anything out of my other posts... so just mark me and others you don't like down as a foe... then you'll have you're own private slashdot experience where no one disagrees with you:)
Maybe moderation shouldn't be anonymous anymore.. and let me turn off all moderations from a person on my foe list -- so that I don't loose other people's contrary voices when I read stories.
I believe the poster is refering to the present, and the fact that the US has attacked a country based on intelligence data that the President should have known was faulty.
France has done this sort of thing in Africa for years... The US has done this sort of thing in Latin America for years. How is Iraq suddenly provoking outrage that CAR, Panama, and Ivory Coast did not?
I've lived in Switzerland - and the SWISS can claim to have a democracy, which is something I quite envy them for - any other nation I've been to would, if compared to Switzerland, come out as an electoral dictatorship at best
Was ancient Athens a democracy by your reckoning? I've heard it called a 'true' democracy, but only a privileged few were allowed to vote. The Swiss also restrict which residents are considered citizens and allowed to vote...
If you're going to try argue by redefining terms from common usage, you need to define your terms clearly and accurately, and then stick to those definitions... or else Socrates will rise from the grave and give you a smack down.
Since you have a federal state and a rather antiquated electoral system, you got stuck with Bush that time round.
And how is a parliamentary system where MPs choose the head of government any different from the electoral college? And who elects the MEPs? (Members European Parliament) The EU is precisely the form of world government most Americans fear from the UN.
In some free countries I know, if Pat Robertson would have made a comment like that, he'd already face prison time for trying to incite murder.
Stuff like that has happened in the past in the US (Pres. John Adams, Sen. McCarthy) but doesn't fly for long in this country. Freedom of speech is a core value of the American revolution, and every little kid in school is told that if anyone every takes that basic right away, the moral thing is to grab a gun and head for the hills. Al Queda has a promise of paradise in the afterlife, the US has Thomas Jefferson and the Tree of Liberty.
How much of an actual threat is Ahmadinejad to the US?
He is a huge threat to Israel. And Israel is a key US ally. The US does not abandon its allies as a core part of its global strategy. If the US abandoned Israel, it would be unable to protect Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan.
Also, the US (and most Americans) will not allow a second holocaust without a fight.... which by Ahmadinejad's remarks seems to be one of his goals.
What bizarro world are you living in where Russia - what's left of it, Russia, not the ex-USSR, is capable of, let alone having any interest in, invading "Baltic States, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Ukraine"
Russia issued a testy rebuke of President Bush yesterday on the eve of his departure for Europe, denying that Moscow had forcibly occupied the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940. This restatement of a Soviet view of history provoked a new round of controversy over modern Russia's intentions toward the now-independent states.
You can google other stories to find that there is tension between Russia and the Baltics... and the Baltics do have a fear of invasion. Much like Caribbean and Central American nations have fears of US invasion.
Fighting wars to prevent wars - is just plain idiocy.
Sure. But fighting wars to prevent potential enemies isn't. Eliminate all dangerous states and replace them with democracies structured in such a way to make it very difficult for them to wage war. Then advocate free trade, with disputes mediated by an international organization and you take away a reason for other powerful states to make war on you. Then you can get buy with a minimal army.
Just look at history and you can see the value of such a plan.
The US *government* (note: not the PEOPLE) are a bunch of fairly dangerous hippocrites at best.
"We want free trade!" (unless of course, we're talking subsidising our farmers so that they can produce "cheaper" than 3rd world countries.
The US is a democracy ruled by a congress full of people both for and against free trade. On some issues one side wins and on other issues the other side wins. This isn't hypocrisy, it is democracy. And if it is so hard to pass laws that hurt a few farmers in a democracy, how hard would it be for a democratic Iran to nuke Israel and bring about a response sure to kill millions of Iranians?
When an Iranian president calls out for wiping Israel off the map - "What an outrage". When Pat Robertson calls for the US to assassinate Robert Chavez "He's just a loony"
Pat Robertson is just a guy with a TV show that says crazy things because he seems to be suffering from some sort of dementia. Just this past year he has said things offensive to Venezuela, Israel, and Pennsylvania. He asks God to smite people all of the time. Now, the Iranian president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is a crazy old man who participated in the holding of the hostages from the American embassy when he was younger, and is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. If Pat Robertson did either of those things, he would be thrown in jail in two heartbeats.
And Pat Roberstson's comments have been sparking outrage in the US for years... to claim that more than a small percentage of Americans aren't outraged by him is a gross distortion of the truth.
And while I AM absolutely grateful that the US helped free Germany 60 years ago...
I guess the US freed Germany from fascism and communism, but neglected to light the beacons of logic and reason. How the hell is Pat Robertson as big a threat as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad??
Who exactly is plausibly going to attack Europe if we didn't have the US to 'shield' us?
Al Queda (if it ain't muslim we ain't happy), Iran (if it's Jewish, they'll nuke it), North Korea (they see James Bond as their #1 threat), Belarus (they agree with North Korea). Two of these have nukes and want money badly, and two want nukes badly and have money.
I'm not saying that the US shields from these sorts of threats directly, it's just having the US around makes it a more attractive target for the crazy-go-down-in-flames attack.... "Dude, you got nuked by France because you nuked Liechtenstein? What the hell?"
Also if China invade Taiwan, it would suck economically for Europe... but only the US is standing by it 100%. If Iran nukes Israel, ditto, and only the US would help Israel retaliate. If North korea vaporizes Seoul who besides the US will take the millions of casualties to stop them?? And if South Korea or Taiwan go, so does your cushy tech job...
Oh, and the Baltic States, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, etc have good reason to fear a change of leadership (or heart) in the governments to the East. (and these countries are in Europe too) Why do you think these countries are so keen to make friends with the US? They know that the EU wouldn't lift a finger if Russia invaded, but the US would go crazy ape shit... Russia has a long history of dealing with people going crazy ape shit, and they respect it more than those who go measured-response-resolution-sanctions.
Yeah, nothing has made me feel safer than the US led attack on Iraq..
unless you're an Iraqi that is crazy-troll-hyperbole. Cuz you seem the be forgetting 1945-1989, during which time the US paid for the defense of Europe from some pretty nasty governments. Even today the US is disproportionately footing the bill for the collective defense of western nations from Iran and North Korea. And without the monstrous bill for this military industrial complex, the US could debate between the 'kinder-gentler' socialist society mentioned above or a libertarian low-tax utopia.
But as it stands, the US doesn't really have an option of doing either. By winning the cold war, the US has made itself a target for every tyrannical regime with something to prove... and it can't cut back very much on defense in such an environment. The only hope of cutting defense spending that the US topple almost every non-deomcratic regime on the planet and replace them with European style democracies. That way these countries will no longer be able to take the extreme measures needed to raise a large military in a small country. And then the US will only have a handful of large militaires to deal with: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc... and those countries are the sort that pretty much would like to spend less on their military if they found a way and just compete economically with each other. And if Free Trade becomes the way of the world, economic competition can be done more cheaply (and more rationally) without a large military. This is opposed to places that could care less about economics and reason like Iran that wants to nuke all of the Jews, and North Korea where they want to be James Bond supervillans.
Since the US will one day no longer be able to afford its large military, it really must make war on potential threats now so as to avoid a world will it will be brutalized when its power falters. I'm not making this argument to justify or attack such a policy... I just think it's inevitable, and we should all just figure out how to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
this is just one of the many publicity stunts pulled by ISU over the years. In Indiana the joke is ISU == I Screwed Up... it's not a good school at all, and they should put more effort in improving their academics than in trying to grab headlines with some dumb 21st century education initiative after another.
No scientist living claims there's a way to stop global warming, only (perhaps) to reduce it somewhat.
You can stop it by deploying a large structure in space that reflects some of the sun's light... or you can scrub greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere... or you can fill the atmosphere with dust like after a large volcanic eruption or a nuclear winter.
There are solutions, but no money has been spent on developing them. This is because the policy makers either are incompetent or don't really care.
I don't know what sort of science fiction you've been reading, but global warming isn't going to make the Earth uninhabitable, or even remotely so. That sort of thing is nothing more than alarmist bullshit.
there are models which predict a run-away greenhouse effect. basically stuff like: north pole melts in summer, this stops deep ocean currents, this then warms continental shelf, which release lots of frozen methane into the atmosphere, frozen methane in the tundra is also released, the methane accelerates the global warming (methane is 2x as effective as CO2 or water in global warming). With all of this extra heat in the system, the climate could reach a new equilibrium at a much higher temperature than currently. People say this is far-fetched just because they don't want to come across as a crackpot, but the fact is depending on what the real values are for things that we don't know well enough to model right now, this could happen... and we don't know enough to exclude it.
So the question becomes, why the hell aren't policy makers pushing to improve the climate models and to launch satellites to measure the unknown parameters so that we know if this really is a possibility?? Such an effort would cost as much as one or two shuttle launches.
depression is a good thing because it allows you to be creative" is fashionable nonsense that I believe has done more harm than good.
I'm talking from personal experience. Depression, despair, etc are places where you can find amazing creativity of both artistic and scientific nature. I would gladly relive my darkest times because I know they are what made me who I am.
I also have known several people who have lost all creativity after being medicated... because there are no highs and no lows just mediocrity.
Yes, some people need to be medicated... but there should be a plan to take them off medication and to teach them how to monitor their illness if they so choose. Instead, it you don't want to be medicated, you are effectively denied treatment by all but crackpot scientologists.
look into child development. many four year olds don't socialize well because they are delayed developmentally. It's very normal... and if you spent any time with four year olds, you would know it's very common. The problem is know-it-all wanna be child psychologists who project their own personal fears of rejection onto four year olds.
It's ok to be introverted... introverts don't feel like they are missing out by being excluded for social cliques. I know because I am one. I come from a long line of people who really just want to go live in a cabin in the woods and be left alone. It's genetic, and it's not a disorder.
The biggest concern is that we NEED socially withdrawn people in a society, it's often withdrawl that leads to creativity, be it artistic, scientific, or even social. We shouldn't be too quick to try to "cure" them, since social withdrawl is part of their personality.
Well said.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Because most of the time social withdrawal is a sign of mental health issues. Are you going to try and prove otherwise? Or were you simply being argumentive and philosophical?
You're a dumbass. dumbity-dumb-dumb-dumbass.
Why the hell is bullying not more of sign of mental health issues?? Do bullies ever turn out to be healthy adults? Dumbass. Yet how many introverted kids, not only turn out fine, but end up doing great things... like say Abraham Lincoln? Dumbass.
Shit I knew smarty-pants know-it-alls like you in school... and I'd kick their dumb-ass dumbasses and make them eat dirt. Shit, how can you be such a know-it-all, if you don't even think about the things you think you know?? ya know?
Dumbass.
Medicate the bullies, and leave the nerds alone!
Most parents feel that they would like their children to do better than they have done and not make the same mistakes they have made. Please take the advice of your children's teachers and spend more time focusing on enabling your children to improve on their weaknesses.
or... I could just let my kids grow up to be who they are rather than forcing them do do things that don't fit in their character. My extended family is full of introverts who would rather be alone than the center of attention. There is nothing wrong with being introverted. Quoth Socrates: "Know Thyself"
You can force your kids to 'pad their stats' if you want... and you'll probably teach them to focus on their inadequacies rather than their strengths. My kids will know who they are, and what they like to do.... and they'll be happier, more well-adjusted adults as a result.
Why it always assumed that social withdrawal is a sign of individual sickness - but not the group itself which should stand in judgement?
...but the thing is that these medications kill all of your creativity (because lets face it creativity is often driven by depression and despair). I am positive that if I had been medicated I would not have accomplished even 10% of what I have accomplished in my life... things I have accomplished with my creativity and with a work ethic born of many, many failures. Sure, maybe I would have had more friends, and I probably would have gone to the prom, and maybe even gotten laid in high school... but I wouldn't have achieved nearly as much, and I probably wouldn't have been able to land my wife (who looks like a supermodel, but is also super-smart, and very funny).
You tell it, brother!!
You don't have to be outgoing type-A to be mentally healthy... or even what society considers mentally healthy to do well in this world. I recently heard an NPR story about how they've started to screen high school students with a questionnaire so that they can medicate people before they go off and kill themselves... but when I heard the 'warning signs' that they were looking for, I realized that they would have flagged me when I was in high school, and they would have tried to persuade my parents to medicate me.
Now my kids are in pre-school, and the teachers are concerned because they don't socialize well and have poor coordination... yeah my four year old reads at a first grade level... but they just see that as a sign of parents pushing too hard (we don't push him at all by the way, he's just a very curious kid). They want us to stop teaching him reading and math and try to push him more into sports and socializing... But I say, so what if he wants to be nerdy.. let him be nerdy.
Something they can all be proud of
I don't know about that... I was reading the site linked in the article and found this blurb... and other googling revealed many accounts that Ub Iwerks was the real creator of Oswald and Mickey... not Walt. (http://www.vitaphone.org/flip.html)
MGM's first sound cartoon character was Flip The Frog. Flip The Frog was created by Ub Iwerks. Ub Iwerks was the CREATOR of Mickey Mouse and had drawned the early Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphony cartoons. (Walt Disney didn't know how to draw and never learned. Take a look at some of the Laugh O Grams that he drew and you'll see how poor his drawing skills were. You can look at the Mickey Mouse poster on the bottom of this page and see what it says: A Walt Disney Comic...Drawn by Ub Iwerks. ) Disney propaganda would have you believe otherwise but the case can be settled by looking at the newspapers, advertisements and magazines of the era. Below you can see a clipping from a 1930 German newspaper hailing the new creation of Ub Iwerks, the creator of Mickey Mouse. Ub Iwerks had actually drawn a frog and his girlfriend in the Silly Symphony cartoons. In one of the last SIlly Symphonies that Ub Iwerks drew the foucs of the film were these two frogs. This cartoon is called Summer. Ub Iwerks with the help of Pat Powers started this new cartoon series after leaving Disney. The first cartoon that Ub Iwerks made for the series was also the first COLOR sound cartoon that was ever made. (Even though Disney would have you believe other wise. Incidentally the first sound cartoon was not the Mickey Mouse cartoon called "Steamboat Willie" but an Aesop's Fable which Disney had seen and copied in 1928 called "DINNER TIME". The first Flip The Frog cartoon had a mouse playing a violin and you can see above. When reading books on so-called animation history some SOB Disney propagandists even refer to the mouse in FIDDLESTICKS as a copy of Walt's Disney Mickey Mouse! Will Disney ever stop taking credit from other people who deserve it?
Steve jobs is great friends with Roy Disney, Jr. who has been a dissident against the Disney board for years (even suing them). I wonder if his stakes plus Jobs post-merge stake would be enough for them to take over... Or if their combined stake would be enough to help Apple buy Disney :) One thing's for sure, if jobs gets control over Disney, Disneyland is going to be insanely great. Can you imagine what the RDF would do? You'll shit your pants. ...but seriously, Jobs in control of Disney would put Apple in a great place for the upcoming iPod vs. Sony battle.
Or maybe you could have given specifics in the first place. Lazy bastard.
yeah, I'm lazy... my original posts has generated tons of replies and thread with ppl asking the same thing over and over again and apparently not reading the other threads or my original post.... c'est slashdot, and I'll be damned if I'm going to write a term paper for someone too lazy to use google and the wikipedia.
Call me when you come up with something that's comparable in size, scope, and false justifications.
France: Angola, Vietnam (probably more, I just don't know a lot of French history)
From American history: War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, Vietnam
(BTW, If you are American, there is _no_ excuse for not knowing about these wars)
One interesting note is that these wars had untruthful justifications, but it appears that the justifications for the Iraq war were truthful,
but wrong. So we are left deciding which is more important: honesty or competence. And the Iraqi occupation is incompetent, but
doesn't appear to be imperialistic (like the above wars)... Hell, it looks like the US may end up with a pro-Iranian government in Iraq.
So the Iraq war is different, but not in the ways you think. Stop pulling your opinions out of your ass, and spend some time researching them.
Damn use google, or better yet read the news once in a while.
Some French neo-colonial wars, under various justifications about protecting people from
this and that but really about maintaining French influence over the government in power.
Central African Republic Intervention (September, 1979)--France organized and aided a coup to overthrow Emperor Jean-Bodel Bokassa. French troops were flown in from Europe and installed former President David Dacko.
New Caledonian Uprising (1984-1985)
Gabon Intervention (May, 1990)
Central African Republic Intervention (April, 1996)--French troops put down a C.A.R. army mutiny.
Central African Republic Intervention (May, 1996)--French troops put down another C.A.R. army mutiny.
Central African Republic Intervention (Nov. 1996-Jan. 1997)--French troops put down yet another C.A.R. army mutiny.
Ivory Coast (Cote de Ivorie) Intervention (2003-Present)-France intervened to bring a halt to the civil war in its former colony. During one clash, the French military avenged the death of several troops by destroying the small Ivory Coast air force as it sat on the ground.
The US 1989 Panama invasion was ostensibly about drugs but was really about the Panama canal. The US Grenada invasion is also questionable.
Perhaps Iraq is so controversial because the US was upfront with its intentions rather than searching for some pretext. The US just said we want a regime change, here's why, we're not looking for some specific action to provoke the invasion, we're going now.
Elected government is no panacea. Elected governments seem to be just as likely to go to war as non-elected ones, if history is any indication.
Sure your generic democracy can wage war (just look at Napoleon)... But look what the US did to Japan, Italy, and Germany. These countries are structured in such a way that they would have a difficult time waging a war of aggression. You need a parliamentary system with a weak executive. Such countries tend to be stable, prosperous, and non-aggressive.
The US and France are pretty much the only democracies with a strong executive to survive any length of time without becoming a dictatorship. The US worked out pretty much only because of the popularity of a play about Cincinatus among the founders, and France worked out mostly because of persistence and 'Frenchness' that lead them to keep trying until it worked.
I have, and I don't have a clue what you're talking about. As I said, there's nothing stopping elected governments from going to war - they've done it plenty of times in the past.
I was referring to how slights from several hundred years ago can come back as genocide against the descendants of those who perpetrated the original infraction. The US can't just sit back and do nothing when it has an enemy or else it will be savaged by its enemies when its power inevitably wanes. I figure I'll see the decline of American power within my lifetime... the large military is just not sustainable under economic competition from China and India.
We need to further friendships with emerging powers like India and Brazil, and take down enemies like Iran and Syria while our power is at its apex. And when we take down a country we can't install a dictatorship (like the US did under the days of RealPolitick), we need to try and set up a Japan or Germany. It is unlikely that Japan, Italy, or Germany will every attack the US is retaliation for WWII. And it is very likely that at least one would help defend the US if attacked.
+2 insightful... then -4 overrated (why overrated... because that is less likely to be meta-moderated unfair). This sort of moderator abuse is become more and more common on slashdot lately. If people keep abusing the moderation system to silence opposing views, then it will destroy the freewheeling forum of slashdot at its best and turn it into some sort of lame clique.
:)
Here's an idea... if you don't like my opinions, use the friend system to hide my comments. If you don't like one of my posts, you won't really get anything out of my other posts... so just mark me and others you don't like down as a foe... then you'll have you're own private slashdot experience where no one disagrees with you
Maybe moderation shouldn't be anonymous anymore.. and let me turn off all moderations from a person on my foe list -- so that I don't loose other people's contrary voices when I read stories.
I believe the poster is refering to the present, and the fact that the US has attacked a country based on intelligence data that the President should have known was faulty.
France has done this sort of thing in Africa for years... The US has done this sort of thing in Latin America for years. How is Iraq suddenly provoking outrage that CAR, Panama, and Ivory Coast did not?
I've lived in Switzerland - and the SWISS can claim to have a democracy, which is something I quite envy them for - any other nation I've been to would, if compared to Switzerland, come out as an electoral dictatorship at best
Was ancient Athens a democracy by your reckoning? I've heard it called a 'true' democracy, but only a privileged few were allowed to vote. The Swiss also restrict which residents are considered citizens and allowed to vote...
If you're going to try argue by redefining terms from common usage, you need to define your terms clearly and accurately, and then stick to those definitions... or else Socrates will rise from the grave and give you a smack down.
Since you have a federal state and a rather antiquated electoral system, you got stuck with Bush that time round.
And how is a parliamentary system where MPs choose the head of government any different from the electoral college? And who elects the MEPs? (Members European Parliament) The EU is precisely the form of world government most Americans fear from the UN.
In some free countries I know, if Pat Robertson would have made a comment like that, he'd already face prison time for trying to incite murder.
Stuff like that has happened in the past in the US (Pres. John Adams, Sen. McCarthy) but doesn't fly for long in this country. Freedom of speech is a core value of the American revolution, and every little kid in school is told that if anyone every takes that basic right away, the moral thing is to grab a gun and head for the hills. Al Queda has a promise of paradise in the afterlife, the US has Thomas Jefferson and the Tree of Liberty.
How much of an actual threat is Ahmadinejad to the US?
He is a huge threat to Israel. And Israel is a key US ally. The US does not abandon its allies as a core part of its global strategy. If the US abandoned Israel, it would be unable to protect Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan.
Also, the US (and most Americans) will not allow a second holocaust without a fight.... which by Ahmadinejad's remarks seems to be one of his goals.
What bizarro world are you living in where Russia - what's left of it, Russia, not the ex-USSR, is capable of, let alone having any interest in, invading "Baltic States, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Ukraine"
c le/2005/05/05/AR2005050501684.html
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Russia issued a testy rebuke of President Bush yesterday on the eve of his departure for Europe, denying that Moscow had forcibly occupied the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940. This restatement of a Soviet view of history provoked a new round of controversy over modern Russia's intentions toward the now-independent states.
You can google other stories to find that there is tension between Russia and the Baltics... and the Baltics do have a fear of invasion. Much like Caribbean and Central American nations have fears of US invasion.
Fighting wars to prevent wars - is just plain idiocy.
Sure. But fighting wars to prevent potential enemies isn't. Eliminate all dangerous states and replace them with democracies structured in such a way to make it very difficult for them to wage war. Then advocate free trade, with disputes mediated by an international organization and you take away a reason for other powerful states to make war on you. Then you can get buy with a minimal army.
Just look at history and you can see the value of such a plan.
The US *government* (note: not the PEOPLE) are a bunch of fairly dangerous hippocrites at best.
"We want free trade!" (unless of course, we're talking subsidising our farmers so that they can produce "cheaper" than 3rd world countries.
The US is a democracy ruled by a congress full of people both for and against free trade. On some issues one side wins and on other issues the other side wins. This isn't hypocrisy, it is democracy. And if it is so hard to pass laws that hurt a few farmers in a democracy, how hard would it be for a democratic Iran to nuke Israel and bring about a response sure to kill millions of Iranians?
When an Iranian president calls out for wiping Israel off the map - "What an outrage". When Pat Robertson calls for the US to assassinate Robert Chavez "He's just a loony"
Pat Robertson is just a guy with a TV show that says crazy things because he seems to be suffering from some sort of dementia. Just this past year he has said things offensive to Venezuela, Israel, and Pennsylvania. He asks God to smite people all of the time. Now, the Iranian president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is a crazy old man who participated in the holding of the hostages from the American embassy when he was younger, and is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. If Pat Robertson did either of those things, he would be thrown in jail in two heartbeats.
And Pat Roberstson's comments have been sparking outrage in the US for years... to claim that more than a small percentage of Americans aren't outraged by him is a gross distortion of the truth.
And while I AM absolutely grateful that the US helped free Germany 60 years ago...
I guess the US freed Germany from fascism and communism, but neglected to light the beacons of logic and reason. How the hell is Pat Robertson as big a threat as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad??
no pacifist-fatalist. I don't like the neo-con agenda, but they have a point.... and they will persuade more people in the US given time.
If the kool-aid is tasty, people are going to drink it.
Who exactly is plausibly going to attack Europe if we didn't have the US to 'shield' us?
Al Queda (if it ain't muslim we ain't happy), Iran (if it's Jewish, they'll nuke it), North Korea (they see James Bond as their #1 threat), Belarus (they agree with North Korea). Two of these have nukes and want money badly, and two want nukes badly and have money.
I'm not saying that the US shields from these sorts of threats directly, it's just having the US around makes it a more attractive target for the crazy-go-down-in-flames attack.... "Dude, you got nuked by France because you nuked Liechtenstein? What the hell?"
Also if China invade Taiwan, it would suck economically for Europe... but only the US is standing by it 100%. If Iran nukes Israel, ditto, and only the US would help Israel retaliate. If North korea vaporizes Seoul who besides the US will take the millions of casualties to stop them?? And if South Korea or Taiwan go, so does your cushy tech job...
Oh, and the Baltic States, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, etc have good reason to fear a change of leadership (or heart) in the governments to the East. (and these countries are in Europe too) Why do you think these countries are so keen to make friends with the US? They know that the EU wouldn't lift a finger if Russia invaded, but the US would go crazy ape shit... Russia has a long history of dealing with people going crazy ape shit, and they respect it more than those who go measured-response-resolution-sanctions.
Yeah, nothing has made me feel safer than the US led attack on Iraq..
unless you're an Iraqi that is crazy-troll-hyperbole. Cuz you seem the be forgetting 1945-1989, during which time the US paid for the defense of Europe from some pretty nasty governments. Even today the US is disproportionately footing the bill for the collective defense of western nations from Iran and North Korea. And without the monstrous bill for this military industrial complex, the US could debate between the 'kinder-gentler' socialist society mentioned above or a libertarian low-tax utopia.
But as it stands, the US doesn't really have an option of doing either. By winning the cold war, the US has made itself a target for every tyrannical regime with something to prove... and it can't cut back very much on defense in such an environment. The only hope of cutting defense spending that the US topple almost every non-deomcratic regime on the planet and replace them with European style democracies. That way these countries will no longer be able to take the extreme measures needed to raise a large military in a small country. And then the US will only have a handful of large militaires to deal with: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc... and those countries are the sort that pretty much would like to spend less on their military if they found a way and just compete economically with each other. And if Free Trade becomes the way of the world, economic competition can be done more cheaply (and more rationally) without a large military. This is opposed to places that could care less about economics and reason like Iran that wants to nuke all of the Jews, and North Korea where they want to be James Bond supervillans.
Since the US will one day no longer be able to afford its large military, it really must make war on potential threats now so as to avoid a world will it will be brutalized when its power falters. I'm not making this argument to justify or attack such a policy... I just think it's inevitable, and we should all just figure out how to deal with it.
Let's be very clear. JPL Mission control has nothing to do with Manned Space Flight, which is what most of the world things of as "Mission Control."
But JSC Mission Control has nothing to do with space flight (at least not space flight beyond the Earth's atmosphere).
And TFA is about JPL flight projects... hence the relevance of JPL mission control as opposed to JSC or GSFC mission control.
cuz its got the snappy
good to know. thanks.