How much do you think the Mongolians would demand for the tech transfer? You do know enough about geography to be aware they are two separate sovereign countries, right?
On the other hand, they might value the thing a little differently than one would a tech asset.
from the article:
According to a team comprising specialists from defense, emergency and astrology, who inspected the object....
This might turn out, if true, to be a real world execution of ideas proposed in Steven E. Landsburg's article (and subsequent book) "More Sex Is Safer Sex". The arguement goes that getting sexually conservative segments of the population to socially engage the sexually prolific segment of the population dampens the amount of partner swapping that goes on and can thus slow the rate of infection. There is a research paper in here somewhere that would make a good candidate for the Ig Nobel prize.
I wonder, is the outrage due to the fact that Genentech's lobbying efforts were successful or that it was somehow "wrong"?
According to the article, some of the points being talked about:
"the U.S. biotechnology industry.... is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country."
"the company’s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States."
"the bill’s potential to create jobs in health care, health information technology and clinical research on new drugs. "
"a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech."
Are these ideas inherently partisan in any way at all? Perhaps the reason so many congressional members swayed to the effort was that the points being disseminated were honest, compelling, and served the interests of the American people they work for. Come on guys, we're all information junkies here at slashdot and it should be a no brainer that ideas sometimes spread and catch on not because they are well publicized, but because they happen to be good ideas. If you want to complain about the lack of originality in your government officials to express good ideas, fine. But don't make it about the inherent tendency for ideas to spread and take hold based on multiple factors - including merit. If the lobbying efforts had engaged in excessive spin or deception, let the well informed among us call them on it. Otherwise, please judge it for what it's worth. The truth shall set you free.
a)sneaker net b)ip over avian carriers c)johnny mnemonic d)radio killed the itunes store e)cowboy neal f)breasts (the live nude version on a real female)
How about starting off with the proper use of a multimeter? Just being able to find out the current/voltage/resistance conditions on various rigs have served me well in the past.
Perhaps not directly relevent to your career background, but amateur radio operators (HAMs) have played a time honored role in coordinating communication for marathons and other very spread out public events. If you happen to have some back ground in anything related to communication technology, I'm sure the local HAM club would be glad to have you, regardless of your morse coding speed (or lack thereof).
I, too, would feel inclined to go all futuristic and philosophical over this news. However, I'm also excited for more practical reasons. As the BBC article stated, we are many years away from attempting this on humans as a medical therapy. But this still represents significant progress in the R&D efforts that will make it easier to harvest and work with stem cells in the laboratory. I worked part time as a lab aide for the biotechnology program at CCSF in 2007 before I joined Genentech. In the cornerstone lab of the stem cell certificate program, students are trained to harvest and manipulate stem cells from the bone marrows of mice just as described in the article. Out of a few micrograms of bone marrow extracted from the femur bone, No more than 1 or 2 (if any at all) out of about 15 students would be able to successfully isolate any stem cells. If we can get their "ramp up" technique to work successfully, our students would at least have a fighting chance to use their newly learned skills to produce some stem cells and do some developmental cell biology.
This was touched upon in the world civilizations class from which I first learned about Gilgamesh. It was reasonable to explain the flood story as originating from folk memory of prehistoric flooding in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley (geological evidence is bountiful). However, it was pointed out that people and cultures have migrated throughout history. Consequently, the story could equally have originated from those who were displaced by the flood event of the Black Sea or elsewhere and the resettled in the fertile crescent. Migration (and by extension, diaspora) could also explain the apparent common theme of great floods in the folklore of so many cultures.
For those of us with parents who don't read English, Ubuntu has been a double blessing. The native language version of the Linux based OS is so much more available in the US than a legitimate (non-pirated) native language version of Windows.
with apologies to previous poster..... perhaps you were using the wrong tools? (j/k) (^_^)
In all seriousness, most of her research were on DNA rather than proteins, which she only briefly mentioned in passing.
Though routine cellular processes like transcription and replication happen without a hitch almost all the time, the way it all happens without getting hopelessly entangled with itself is an incredibly interesting problem. For those of us who are not cellular biologists: gene transcription in eukaryotes involve not only the chromosome unwinding at a specific point (allowing polymerase complexes of several protein molecules to access the relevant portion of the genetic code) but also nearby sections of the DNA strand looping back through the complex because it contains control elements that regulates the expression of the gene. Inevitably, knots form and must be resolved. A mathematical basis for this process would be extremely welcomed by molecular biologist.
Once upon a time, I was similarly bored by this area of abstract research. But about a year ago, I attended a seminar where a guest lecturer was a mathematician who applied knot theory to the physical modeling of life processes involving the winding and unwinding of DNA in Chromosomes and the folding and unfolding of peptide strings in protein formation. I didn't understand half of the lecture. But one very important point I got out of it is that no matter how abstract and esoteric a subject might be, there is immense value to be obtained if it can be utilized to model physical processes we seek to understand.
What do you mean? Step back as the opposite of step up to the plate?
here is a partial list of when they (have) work(ed) against progress
Christianity vs. Galileo & Copernicus
Fa Lung Gong vs. every frigging thing that is normal
Christian Science vs. modern medicine
Scientology vs. psychology
Islam (the fundamentalist variety) vs. gender equality and global harmony
But to be fair, religion *has* also stepped up to the plate on a few occasions. It is important to keep in mind that the concept of higher education and the modern collegiate system took shape within the catholic monasteries of the middle ages among the scribes whose efforts in propagating language and culture proved vital to later civil/social developments of the western world. And centuries before the crazy nut jobs took over Islam, it was Islamic scholars who preserved much of the writings of Plato, Aristotle and other treasures of Greek antiquity.
We play politics with this sort of thing a lot these days. But the actual stories behind the talking points are many shades of gray.
mod parent up. I did some reading last year on Cronic Wasting Disease (CWD was mentioned in the article) for my infectious disease class and examples like the outbreak at the mink farm just mentioned was very prevalent in available literature. I think most people are getting the wrong idea because the article is badly written for a non-technical audience. The novelty seems *not* to be that prions can cause cross-species infections, but that it has been demonstrated in vitro (by way of "protein misfolding cyclic amplification (PMCA) protocol") in such a way that elucidated some details (multiple forms as revealed by novel strain properties) that were not apparent before. This is interesting *not* because it is a ground breaking new discovery, but because it serves as a starting point for further studying cross-species prion interaction from a different perspective using different techniques.
"There is a two- to eight-year incubation period for mad cow disease. Because most cattle slaughtered in the United States are less than 24 months old, the most common mad cow disease test is unlikely to catch the disease, the appeals court noted. If the government does not control the tests, the USDA is worried about beef exporters unilaterally giving consumers false assurance."
Folks seem to neglect this minor detail that it is ultimately a good thing the USDA is taking measures to prevent mis-information and FUD from affecting beef exports.
At first, my instinct was to argue against you. But then, I thought about it a bit more and I realized I agreed with you. Religion does deserve to be treated more seriously in the American educational system. But it ought to be taught as such and it ought to be taught properly. Just as scientific and cultural knowledge contributed by the rest of humanity has so enriched our modern society, so should religious beliefs be accessible to everyone. We should offer equal time in the classrooms to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and all the different varieties of African bush magic. It is high time that we Americans teach future generations that there is more than one way for a civilization to be civil. We should feed the curiosity and open mindedness of young students, not their deepest fears and apprehensions. Perhaps then, we would be a bit closer to having a bit less conflict around the world.
Have you figured out the head fake?
I've not participated in business operations involving high volume email. But even as a private individual, I've gotten in hot water before when I've sent out messages to large a number of recipients. Some of my intended (consenting) targets have reported my stuff ending up in their Spam folder. As such, you may convince your boss that it would hurt his business goals in the long run as he risk getting "black listed". Maybe even to the point that legitimate communication gets denied by filtering software that has been trained through exposure to the business's email address.
Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?
With the manpower/resources involved in doing this, you wonder if it will work out economically in the long run. Minor nit-pick, but I understand the spirit of your comment.
I think, however, it is more interesting to look a the problem from the perspective of the government. Why bring such charges when the national security apparatus similarly invading the privacy of citizens via laws like the patriot act? I suppose one can get around the hypocrisy charge by asserting only the government - not private businesses can do such things. But then we end up looking more like the police state we are fond of criticizing. Would industry lawyers actually have enough balls to call the kettle black? intersting times.
Darby, I think our conversation is becoming more enlightening. However, it wouldn't be long before this story becomes archived and enters read only mode. As such, it would be difficult to continue posting here to continue our discussion. I will reply as best as I can here and now, but if you wish to continue engaging in this exchange, I would encourage you to email me privately at thinkren*at*gmail*dot*com.
As I was saying, I think we're finding more common ground. However, I feel I need to re-center this discussion around the original point I was trying to make which started off this discussion. I was responding to the question of why people signed up and joined the military. I answered the best I could, based on friends I know who actually enlisted. I never intended to become involved in a discussion about ethical use of the military (more on this later). You may or may not agree with my regard for my friends, but I wouldn't fault you for not appreciating people you don't know. They are *my* friends - not yours, and I am not going to blame you for not standing by them. Yes, I do, as you state, argue about specific individual members of the current military. That is because they are relevant to my answer to the question of 'why do people join the military?'. For each and every one of them, every conflict is indeed more or less isolated. That is because none of my friends are career military officers. They do their tour of duty (or whatever you call it) and then return to civilian life. My friends have been in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq (both times, but not by the same individual), and the Philippines. In each of those cases, my friends have supported US troops as well as provide humanitarian assistance as nurses, ambulance crew, relief and aid distributors, etc. Again, none of my friends, although, some have been shot at, have ever participated in anti-insurgent offensives, or any kind of organized killings. No murdering of bunches of people or personal looting and pillaging of native resources. By and large, they joined up as one phase of their passage through life under purposeful and well thought out intentions and were able to accomplish some good during that time.
For the sake of this entire discussion, we can assume that they're motivated by nothing but love for their fellow people, have not a scrap of anything unpleasant within themselves, and fart dusts of pure crystalized love if you'd like.
Thank you for understanding. That was all I was really trying to say all along. Realistically, speaking, some self interest is involved. I did mention paying off student loans and supporting families, right? But that is as selfish as it gets. Although my female (ex)soldier friends would tell you that women don't fart at all.
I'm not talking about the motivations, goals and desires of the people you're talking about.
Then we must be very clear about starting another discussion that is entirely different in tone and context from the one I initially intended. In particular, I think we need to clarify the degree of responsibility of involved participants.
In particular let us talk about the culpability of those who join a misused military with misguided and borderline illegal missions. I'm not going to argue with you about how grave the situation is. It is pretty bad, no doubt about it. However, I think realistically speaking the angle you're coming from is counter-productive. The elimination of folks like my friends from enlisting will hardly make a dent in the accomplishment of the objectives of those who you single out a profiting from war and conflict. In fact, I think it will make it worse. There are already reports saying the recruiters have lowered enlisting standards to the point where criminal records are more tolerated and psychological integrity can be fudged. Without level-headed folks like my friends filling the ranks, we run much greater risks of "Abu Ghraib"-type events and other examples of break do
Addendum.
I speak for Pat Tillman because obviously, he can't speak for himself. Fortunately, his mother has opened up and spoken in public. Here is a radio interview:
http://kqed.org/programs/radio/forum/
As of the moment, it is current, but the segment will enter into the archives pretty soon. You would agree with much of what she has to say about the failures and miss-steps of the military in handling her son's death. But regardless, she honors his character and spirit in the same spirit that I defend my friends.
However, the military has not acted to defend us in relation to 9/11 which is one of the major problems with the whole Iraq thing. They have been used to stir up even more trouble, to increase hostility, and to justify even greater government and military expenditures.
Which is why I say bring up Iraq side tracks the discussion. The *Iraq* thing is the problem, not the military. The military just unfortunately happens to be the monkey wrench that fucked the whole thing up. Given the incompetent "tool user" at hand, it could easily have been something else.
You can talk all day long about how you know people over there and they're passing out candy bars or whatever stuff they, as genuinely nice individuals, choose to do, but it's completely meaningless to the topic.
Actually, that is exactly the point of the topic. I have a big problem with those who say that the military is at fault for the current situation we are in while white washing the responsibilities of civilian leaders. Sure, there is lip service about what bastards Bush, Chaney and Company are, but one seems to accept that as an unchangable fact of life while the men and women in uniform have done some horrible sin in one of many parts of the world where they are active. What's up with that? When you have flimsy furniture, do you blame the carpenter or his tools?
The military was used as a tool to create more terrorists
Ahh! There, you've said it yourself. I'm glad I don't need to explain this point any further. "The military was used *AS A TOOL*". The tool didn't use itself, did it? Is it a bad tool because it was misused?
in order to use terrorism as an excuse to set up the police state bullshit we're currently enacting. You can debate whether that aspect of the plan was intentional or serendipitous, but it's obviously how it turned out.
I don't think there is any question that the current restrictions on freedom and privacy is an intended component of response. Any security apparatus seeks to assert control and awareness over whatever it is protecting. With the perceived need to protect the citizens, our particular security apparatus has unfortunately been given too much power and control.
Opinions, however, are not equally valid.
So what? Distinguished individuals with strong opinions are a dime a dozen. Just because you happen to agree with one as opposed to another doesn't make one perspective more valid than another. Besides, this again, veers from the intended point I was trying to make. I never claimed that military power has never been misused, either presently or historically. (I thought we got over that point already.) My point is and has always been that individual people join up for good reasons and, with righteous motivations, do a lot of good things.
During the World Wars, the American people sacrificed a great deal, and some of them got very rich and powerful making weapons. It's one thing to be in the business of making war materials when demand goes through the roof, but it's a completely different thing to be in that market and make up wars to grow your business off of the public tit and the public blood.
That is all fine and good. But again, do you really intend to hold uniformed men and women who risk their lives accountable rather than the decision makers and financial stake holders who sent them out there? I have yet to meet one rich soldier or hear of anyone who became one in order to become wealthy.
A great deal of what we've done militarily since WW2 falls into the second category.
Presumably you disagree with that, or I don't think we have a disagreement at all.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think you point is poorly argued and quite honestly beside the point. I think you are unfairly throwing out the baby with the bath water by refusing to distinguish
Who is Smedley D. Butler? How does the personal perspective of one individual constitute proof? Less the individual be God himself the man only offers one opinion among many. Brother, not you, not Major General Butler, not any one individual gets to pass off lone perspectives as overarching truth. There is no proof. Your opinion is only that.
Mentioning Iraq sidetracks the topic of discussion at hand. NATO is not active in Iraq. Bush and company went in against the positions of member nations France, Germany, and Canada among others. You failed to recognize the fact that the initial invocation of "Article 5" demonstrates that 9/11 constitutes an attack on the US homeland as recognized by a military mutual defense organization. This is counter to the assertion that America has not been attacked since WWII.
Now that that is taken care of, I would like to return to the point I was trying to make before which is that ordinary citizens enlist for reasons that are not all disgraceful or shameful. Neither Pat Tillman or Doug Love have the power to influence policy. I acknowledge your argument that military power can (and currently is being) misused. But don't blame the troops dying on the front. Don't blame the father supporting his family or the student financing his/her debt. One of my co-workers (ex-air force) has a daughter in an ambulance platoon. They did good work in Kosevo, they are good people.
I read books. I learn a lot from them. But I've find it far more insightful to talk to people. People like Doug Love, my co-worker Jim Eli, and yes even you. I'm sorry I accused you of being a narrow-minded virgin. But if you are man enough to reply, then yes - I would also be willing to engage you in a rational discussion on this matter.
Believe it or not, I think we share common ground regarding the use of military power. However, I strongly disagree with what seems like your position that the culpability for mistakes should entirely fall to the majority of currently active soldiers and veterans whose duty it is to follow orders (even bad ones which seems to be the norm these days). In short, I'm against the war, but I support our troops. My respect and admiration for life is driven by the nobility of all those I've talked to who have served and served for the right reasons. Less I be misunderstood, this is not to say I condone the events of Abu Ghraib or similar incidents. That is different but something I feel strongly about also. Most people I've talked to say that a good soldier would've refused to do what was done in those photos. But that does not represent the military as exemplified by my personal friends and acquaintances - none of whom are greedy senseless murderers.
Given that the military is used primarily as a weapon of big business
prove it.
and hasn't been used in defense of the US since WW2 at least
NATO disagrees with you. The events of 9/11 lead to invocation of "Article 5" of the NATO charter where all member states come to the mutual DEFENCE of a member state that has suffered an attack.
patriots wouldn't go near the military.
proof?
Given that joining up means being used as a weapon against freedom
proof?
you're just not going to find any decent patriotic citizens in the service.
proof?
They've been fucked too many times, and smart people learn.
Chances are, you have never been fucked by anyone or anything except the sad result of your own narrow-mindedness. Consequently, you have not had the chance to learn anything about the human spirit. But that is just a guess. I sincerely hope someday you will have the privileged and honor of meeting someone as noble as Doug Love or Pat Tillman. Hopefully, someone who is patient and compassionate enough to regard you with the respect that I find very difficult to grant you at the moment. Until then, I hope talking like an idiot is the worst you'll do and that your ignorance and immaturity does not land you in more serious trouble and compromise your safety and well-being. Because smart people learn without being fucked and befriending folks who are smarter and more worldly then you is one small step in the right direction. Good luck to you on your journey through life.
Slashdot Mirror
How much do you think the Mongolians would demand for the tech transfer? You do know enough about geography to be aware they are two separate sovereign countries, right?
On the other hand, they might value the thing a little differently than one would a tech asset.
from the article:
According to a team comprising specialists from defense, emergency and astrology, who inspected the object....
This might turn out, if true, to be a real world execution of ideas proposed in Steven E. Landsburg's article (and subsequent book) "More Sex Is Safer Sex". The arguement goes that getting sexually conservative segments of the population to socially engage the sexually prolific segment of the population dampens the amount of partner swapping that goes on and can thus slow the rate of infection. There is a research paper in here somewhere that would make a good candidate for the Ig Nobel prize.
I wonder, is the outrage due to the fact that Genentech's lobbying efforts were successful or that it was somehow "wrong"?
According to the article, some of the points being talked about:
"the U.S. biotechnology industry .... is a homegrown success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country."
"the company’s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States."
"the bill’s potential to create jobs in health care, health information technology and clinical research on new drugs. "
"a provision that would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by brand-name companies like Genentech."
Are these ideas inherently partisan in any way at all? Perhaps the reason so many congressional members swayed to the effort was that the points being disseminated were honest, compelling, and served the interests of the American people they work for. Come on guys, we're all information junkies here at slashdot and it should be a no brainer that ideas sometimes spread and catch on not because they are well publicized, but because they happen to be good ideas. If you want to complain about the lack of originality in your government officials to express good ideas, fine. But don't make it about the inherent tendency for ideas to spread and take hold based on multiple factors - including merit. If the lobbying efforts had engaged in excessive spin or deception, let the well informed among us call them on it. Otherwise, please judge it for what it's worth. The truth shall set you free.
What would replace the internet?
a)sneaker net
b)ip over avian carriers
c)johnny mnemonic
d)radio killed the itunes store
e)cowboy neal
f)breasts (the live nude version on a real female)
How about starting off with the proper use of a multimeter? Just being able to find out the current/voltage/resistance conditions on various rigs have served me well in the past.
You SEE! I am NOT crazy for sleeping every night with a phaser rifle under the pillow! Who's laughing now, Bitch!
Perhaps not directly relevent to your career background, but amateur radio operators (HAMs) have played a time honored role in coordinating communication for marathons and other very spread out public events. If you happen to have some back ground in anything related to communication technology, I'm sure the local HAM club would be glad to have you, regardless of your morse coding speed (or lack thereof).
I, too, would feel inclined to go all futuristic and philosophical over this news. However, I'm also excited for more practical reasons. As the BBC article stated, we are many years away from attempting this on humans as a medical therapy. But this still represents significant progress in the R&D efforts that will make it easier to harvest and work with stem cells in the laboratory. I worked part time as a lab aide for the biotechnology program at CCSF in 2007 before I joined Genentech. In the cornerstone lab of the stem cell certificate program, students are trained to harvest and manipulate stem cells from the bone marrows of mice just as described in the article. Out of a few micrograms of bone marrow extracted from the femur bone, No more than 1 or 2 (if any at all) out of about 15 students would be able to successfully isolate any stem cells. If we can get their "ramp up" technique to work successfully, our students would at least have a fighting chance to use their newly learned skills to produce some stem cells and do some developmental cell biology.
This was touched upon in the world civilizations class from which I first learned about Gilgamesh. It was reasonable to explain the flood story as originating from folk memory of prehistoric flooding in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley (geological evidence is bountiful). However, it was pointed out that people and cultures have migrated throughout history. Consequently, the story could equally have originated from those who were displaced by the flood event of the Black Sea or elsewhere and the resettled in the fertile crescent. Migration (and by extension, diaspora) could also explain the apparent common theme of great floods in the folklore of so many cultures.
yes
For those of us with parents who don't read English, Ubuntu has been a double blessing. The native language version of the Linux based OS is so much more available in the US than a legitimate (non-pirated) native language version of Windows.
with apologies to previous poster..... perhaps you were using the wrong tools? (j/k) (^_^) In all seriousness, most of her research were on DNA rather than proteins, which she only briefly mentioned in passing. Though routine cellular processes like transcription and replication happen without a hitch almost all the time, the way it all happens without getting hopelessly entangled with itself is an incredibly interesting problem. For those of us who are not cellular biologists: gene transcription in eukaryotes involve not only the chromosome unwinding at a specific point (allowing polymerase complexes of several protein molecules to access the relevant portion of the genetic code) but also nearby sections of the DNA strand looping back through the complex because it contains control elements that regulates the expression of the gene. Inevitably, knots form and must be resolved. A mathematical basis for this process would be extremely welcomed by molecular biologist.
Once upon a time, I was similarly bored by this area of abstract research. But about a year ago, I attended a seminar where a guest lecturer was a mathematician who applied knot theory to the physical modeling of life processes involving the winding and unwinding of DNA in Chromosomes and the folding and unfolding of peptide strings in protein formation. I didn't understand half of the lecture. But one very important point I got out of it is that no matter how abstract and esoteric a subject might be, there is immense value to be obtained if it can be utilized to model physical processes we seek to understand.
What do you mean? Step back as the opposite of step up to the plate?
here is a partial list of when they (have) work(ed) against progress
Christianity vs. Galileo & Copernicus
Fa Lung Gong vs. every frigging thing that is normal
Christian Science vs. modern medicine
Scientology vs. psychology
Islam (the fundamentalist variety) vs. gender equality and global harmony
But to be fair, religion *has* also stepped up to the plate on a few occasions. It is important to keep in mind that the concept of higher education and the modern collegiate system took shape within the catholic monasteries of the middle ages among the scribes whose efforts in propagating language and culture proved vital to later civil/social developments of the western world. And centuries before the crazy nut jobs took over Islam, it was Islamic scholars who preserved much of the writings of Plato, Aristotle and other treasures of Greek antiquity.
We play politics with this sort of thing a lot these days. But the actual stories behind the talking points are many shades of gray.
mod parent up. I did some reading last year on Cronic Wasting Disease (CWD was mentioned in the article) for my infectious disease class and examples like the outbreak at the mink farm just mentioned was very prevalent in available literature. I think most people are getting the wrong idea because the article is badly written for a non-technical audience. The novelty seems *not* to be that prions can cause cross-species infections, but that it has been demonstrated in vitro (by way of "protein misfolding cyclic amplification (PMCA) protocol") in such a way that elucidated some details (multiple forms as revealed by novel strain properties) that were not apparent before. This is interesting *not* because it is a ground breaking new discovery, but because it serves as a starting point for further studying cross-species prion interaction from a different perspective using different techniques.
"There is a two- to eight-year incubation period for mad cow disease. Because most cattle slaughtered in the United States are less than 24 months old, the most common mad cow disease test is unlikely to catch the disease, the appeals court noted. If the government does not control the tests, the USDA is worried about beef exporters unilaterally giving consumers false assurance."
Folks seem to neglect this minor detail that it is ultimately a good thing the USDA is taking measures to prevent mis-information and FUD from affecting beef exports.
At first, my instinct was to argue against you. But then, I thought about it a bit more and I realized I agreed with you. Religion does deserve to be treated more seriously in the American educational system. But it ought to be taught as such and it ought to be taught properly. Just as scientific and cultural knowledge contributed by the rest of humanity has so enriched our modern society, so should religious beliefs be accessible to everyone. We should offer equal time in the classrooms to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and all the different varieties of African bush magic. It is high time that we Americans teach future generations that there is more than one way for a civilization to be civil. We should feed the curiosity and open mindedness of young students, not their deepest fears and apprehensions. Perhaps then, we would be a bit closer to having a bit less conflict around the world. Have you figured out the head fake?
....or 300 years of evolutionary programming....So... umm... how was replication implemented before that was coded?
*duck* *runs away*
I've not participated in business operations involving high volume email. But even as a private individual, I've gotten in hot water before when I've sent out messages to large a number of recipients. Some of my intended (consenting) targets have reported my stuff ending up in their Spam folder. As such, you may convince your boss that it would hurt his business goals in the long run as he risk getting "black listed". Maybe even to the point that legitimate communication gets denied by filtering software that has been trained through exposure to the business's email address.
With the manpower/resources involved in doing this, you wonder if it will work out economically in the long run. Minor nit-pick, but I understand the spirit of your comment.
I think, however, it is more interesting to look a the problem from the perspective of the government. Why bring such charges when the national security apparatus similarly invading the privacy of citizens via laws like the patriot act? I suppose one can get around the hypocrisy charge by asserting only the government - not private businesses can do such things. But then we end up looking more like the police state we are fond of criticizing. Would industry lawyers actually have enough balls to call the kettle black? intersting times.
Darby, I think our conversation is becoming more enlightening. However, it wouldn't be long before this story becomes archived and enters read only mode. As such, it would be difficult to continue posting here to continue our discussion. I will reply as best as I can here and now, but if you wish to continue engaging in this exchange, I would encourage you to email me privately at thinkren*at*gmail*dot*com.
As I was saying, I think we're finding more common ground. However, I feel I need to re-center this discussion around the original point I was trying to make which started off this discussion. I was responding to the question of why people signed up and joined the military. I answered the best I could, based on friends I know who actually enlisted. I never intended to become involved in a discussion about ethical use of the military (more on this later). You may or may not agree with my regard for my friends, but I wouldn't fault you for not appreciating people you don't know. They are *my* friends - not yours, and I am not going to blame you for not standing by them. Yes, I do, as you state, argue about specific individual members of the current military. That is because they are relevant to my answer to the question of 'why do people join the military?'. For each and every one of them, every conflict is indeed more or less isolated. That is because none of my friends are career military officers. They do their tour of duty (or whatever you call it) and then return to civilian life. My friends have been in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq (both times, but not by the same individual), and the Philippines. In each of those cases, my friends have supported US troops as well as provide humanitarian assistance as nurses, ambulance crew, relief and aid distributors, etc. Again, none of my friends, although, some have been shot at, have ever participated in anti-insurgent offensives, or any kind of organized killings. No murdering of bunches of people or personal looting and pillaging of native resources. By and large, they joined up as one phase of their passage through life under purposeful and well thought out intentions and were able to accomplish some good during that time.
For the sake of this entire discussion, we can assume that they're motivated by nothing but love for their fellow people, have not a scrap of anything unpleasant within themselves, and fart dusts of pure crystalized love if you'd like.
Thank you for understanding. That was all I was really trying to say all along. Realistically, speaking, some self interest is involved. I did mention paying off student loans and supporting families, right? But that is as selfish as it gets. Although my female (ex)soldier friends would tell you that women don't fart at all.
I'm not talking about the motivations, goals and desires of the people you're talking about.
Then we must be very clear about starting another discussion that is entirely different in tone and context from the one I initially intended. In particular, I think we need to clarify the degree of responsibility of involved participants.
In particular let us talk about the culpability of those who join a misused military with misguided and borderline illegal missions. I'm not going to argue with you about how grave the situation is. It is pretty bad, no doubt about it. However, I think realistically speaking the angle you're coming from is counter-productive. The elimination of folks like my friends from enlisting will hardly make a dent in the accomplishment of the objectives of those who you single out a profiting from war and conflict. In fact, I think it will make it worse. There are already reports saying the recruiters have lowered enlisting standards to the point where criminal records are more tolerated and psychological integrity can be fudged. Without level-headed folks like my friends filling the ranks, we run much greater risks of "Abu Ghraib"-type events and other examples of break do
Addendum. I speak for Pat Tillman because obviously, he can't speak for himself. Fortunately, his mother has opened up and spoken in public. Here is a radio interview: http://kqed.org/programs/radio/forum/ As of the moment, it is current, but the segment will enter into the archives pretty soon. You would agree with much of what she has to say about the failures and miss-steps of the military in handling her son's death. But regardless, she honors his character and spirit in the same spirit that I defend my friends.
However, the military has not acted to defend us in relation to 9/11 which is one of the major problems with the whole Iraq thing. They have been used to stir up even more trouble, to increase hostility, and to justify even greater government and military expenditures.
Which is why I say bring up Iraq side tracks the discussion. The *Iraq* thing is the problem, not the military. The military just unfortunately happens to be the monkey wrench that fucked the whole thing up. Given the incompetent "tool user" at hand, it could easily have been something else.
You can talk all day long about how you know people over there and they're passing out candy bars or whatever stuff they, as genuinely nice individuals, choose to do, but it's completely meaningless to the topic.
Actually, that is exactly the point of the topic. I have a big problem with those who say that the military is at fault for the current situation we are in while white washing the responsibilities of civilian leaders. Sure, there is lip service about what bastards Bush, Chaney and Company are, but one seems to accept that as an unchangable fact of life while the men and women in uniform have done some horrible sin in one of many parts of the world where they are active. What's up with that? When you have flimsy furniture, do you blame the carpenter or his tools?
The military was used as a tool to create more terrorists
Ahh! There, you've said it yourself. I'm glad I don't need to explain this point any further. "The military was used *AS A TOOL*". The tool didn't use itself, did it? Is it a bad tool because it was misused?
in order to use terrorism as an excuse to set up the police state bullshit we're currently enacting. You can debate whether that aspect of the plan was intentional or serendipitous, but it's obviously how it turned out.
I don't think there is any question that the current restrictions on freedom and privacy is an intended component of response. Any security apparatus seeks to assert control and awareness over whatever it is protecting. With the perceived need to protect the citizens, our particular security apparatus has unfortunately been given too much power and control.
Opinions, however, are not equally valid.
So what? Distinguished individuals with strong opinions are a dime a dozen. Just because you happen to agree with one as opposed to another doesn't make one perspective more valid than another. Besides, this again, veers from the intended point I was trying to make. I never claimed that military power has never been misused, either presently or historically. (I thought we got over that point already.) My point is and has always been that individual people join up for good reasons and, with righteous motivations, do a lot of good things.
During the World Wars, the American people sacrificed a great deal, and some of them got very rich and powerful making weapons. It's one thing to be in the business of making war materials when demand goes through the roof, but it's a completely different thing to be in that market and make up wars to grow your business off of the public tit and the public blood.
That is all fine and good. But again, do you really intend to hold uniformed men and women who risk their lives accountable rather than the decision makers and financial stake holders who sent them out there? I have yet to meet one rich soldier or hear of anyone who became one in order to become wealthy.
A great deal of what we've done militarily since WW2 falls into the second category. Presumably you disagree with that, or I don't think we have a disagreement at all.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think you point is poorly argued and quite honestly beside the point. I think you are unfairly throwing out the baby with the bath water by refusing to distinguish
Who is Smedley D. Butler? How does the personal perspective of one individual constitute proof? Less the individual be God himself the man only offers one opinion among many. Brother, not you, not Major General Butler, not any one individual gets to pass off lone perspectives as overarching truth. There is no proof. Your opinion is only that.
Mentioning Iraq sidetracks the topic of discussion at hand. NATO is not active in Iraq. Bush and company went in against the positions of member nations France, Germany, and Canada among others. You failed to recognize the fact that the initial invocation of "Article 5" demonstrates that 9/11 constitutes an attack on the US homeland as recognized by a military mutual defense organization. This is counter to the assertion that America has not been attacked since WWII.
Now that that is taken care of, I would like to return to the point I was trying to make before which is that ordinary citizens enlist for reasons that are not all disgraceful or shameful. Neither Pat Tillman or Doug Love have the power to influence policy. I acknowledge your argument that military power can (and currently is being) misused. But don't blame the troops dying on the front. Don't blame the father supporting his family or the student financing his/her debt. One of my co-workers (ex-air force) has a daughter in an ambulance platoon. They did good work in Kosevo, they are good people.
I read books. I learn a lot from them. But I've find it far more insightful to talk to people. People like Doug Love, my co-worker Jim Eli, and yes even you. I'm sorry I accused you of being a narrow-minded virgin. But if you are man enough to reply, then yes - I would also be willing to engage you in a rational discussion on this matter.
Believe it or not, I think we share common ground regarding the use of military power. However, I strongly disagree with what seems like your position that the culpability for mistakes should entirely fall to the majority of currently active soldiers and veterans whose duty it is to follow orders (even bad ones which seems to be the norm these days). In short, I'm against the war, but I support our troops. My respect and admiration for life is driven by the nobility of all those I've talked to who have served and served for the right reasons. Less I be misunderstood, this is not to say I condone the events of Abu Ghraib or similar incidents. That is different but something I feel strongly about also. Most people I've talked to say that a good soldier would've refused to do what was done in those photos. But that does not represent the military as exemplified by my personal friends and acquaintances - none of whom are greedy senseless murderers.
P.S. Lorn, huh? Whedon fan? ;-)
why?
Given that the military is used primarily as a weapon of big businessprove it.
and hasn't been used in defense of the US since WW2 at leastNATO disagrees with you. The events of 9/11 lead to invocation of "Article 5" of the NATO charter where all member states come to the mutual DEFENCE of a member state that has suffered an attack.
patriots wouldn't go near the military.proof?
Given that joining up means being used as a weapon against freedomproof?
you're just not going to find any decent patriotic citizens in the service.proof?
They've been fucked too many times, and smart people learn.Chances are, you have never been fucked by anyone or anything except the sad result of your own narrow-mindedness. Consequently, you have not had the chance to learn anything about the human spirit. But that is just a guess. I sincerely hope someday you will have the privileged and honor of meeting someone as noble as Doug Love or Pat Tillman. Hopefully, someone who is patient and compassionate enough to regard you with the respect that I find very difficult to grant you at the moment. Until then, I hope talking like an idiot is the worst you'll do and that your ignorance and immaturity does not land you in more serious trouble and compromise your safety and well-being. Because smart people learn without being fucked and befriending folks who are smarter and more worldly then you is one small step in the right direction. Good luck to you on your journey through life.