Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.
The better corporations realize that money isn't made from getting a customer, but maintaining good customer relationships with current customers. In this economy, no one can afford to provide poor customer service. I hope Verizon changes its policy to deal with the deaths of its current customers.
The political issue at hand is this: Should the government allow people to make irrational decisions when the mistakes can be costly or deadly? There is a movement called "soft paternalism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_paternalism) that basically argues that many people are making irrational decisions, so the government should gently nudge them into making rational ones. There are many books promoting this idea, including Nudge, The Paradox of Choice and Free Market Madness.
This sounds all nice and wonderful until you realize that it's ultimately politicians and bureaucrats that is deciding what is "rational" for a person to spend their money on -- like they're such great role models:p
I'll admit that my concept of our spending is probably skewed by intentionally misleading infographics and such, but this doesn't seem to jive with anything I've ever seen. Can someone explain how this is true, or point to something that does?
The cost of health care driving the US deficit and federal debt is actually old news:
Well, this is an interesting question, and I can only speak from my own experience, but I personally feel it's more nurture than nature.
Next time you go shopping, go to the toy section of the store and look how boys' toys and girls' toys treat the subject of electricity. Last time I went, the boy's section had a toy that showed boys how to make a circuit, and the only toy in the girls' section that had anything to do with electricity was a magic genie lamp that required batteries to "magically" glow. And this was a Wal-Mart in a major American city. I also saw a lot of cool boys' toys that showed how to build complex structures. There was no equivalent in the girls' section. So, here we have boys' toys that encourage logic and engineering, while girls' toys equate science to "magic." Interesting.
Another problem is schools and school teachers. I remember in elementary and middle school when I expressed an interest in science and math, while my teachers would say, "But you're such a good writer." So, I was receiving explicit messages that writing was my strength and I should put those other things aside.
Then, there was college. I tried to major in computer science for a while, and then I realized that I had never taken the classes required for me to think logically. That was partially my fault. And while the computer science professors were helpful, the young men in the department who were my peers brushed me aside and treated me like I didn't exist. Eventually I started to wonder if I had the wrong genitalia to major in computer science. This attitude of mine led me to eventually switch to a major my high school teachers had prepared me for: English.
Now, I'm in the process of getting my Master's of Library Science. I'm taking a course required for my Master's degree, a class in basic computer applications (the Microsoft Office 2003 suite, basically). The class is a breeze, and it's being taught by a woman who knows how to program in various languages, including COBOL. She is encouraging me to go back to school to get a BS in some sort of science like I originally wanted. I'm thinking of majoring in physics with a minor in computer science. Maybe, I could get a Master's degree in Physics and be qualified to be a science librarian and help with research. I feel that if I had met my teacher earlier, I would have graduated with a computer science degree instead of an English degree. So, having strong role models for women in the sciences (real live ones, not just Ana Lovelace and Dr. Grace Hopper) is another major step for more women to be in the sciences.
The geek culture is one that I feel that women can adapt to, because I am a member of a Slackware online group that is mostly male, but I can flame and write jokes like the best of them. They treat me differently, it's true, but they treat me with a lot of respect because I am a woman that can hold on her own. So, IMHO, I do not feel that geek culture is a major impediment to women working on or with OSS, it's more of the major culture that discourages women from even being in OSS in the first place.
"The difficulty of formal logic was demonstrated in the monumental Principia Mathematica (1925) of Whitehead and Russell's, in which hundreds of pages of symbols were required before the statement 1 + 1 = 2 could be deduced."
There are two sides but you have to look at the magnitudes. There are 100,000 in the new army alone. I don't think normal sane iraqis would go around blowing up iraqi children whose only crime is wanting to play football with american soldiers.
I don't know how many people have become terrorists or involved in warfare against US forces. I don't think anyone can put a number on that. However, I would argue that the terrorists are sane individuals. They just have a violent, extremist philosophy about who is an enemy and who isn't. Anyone in friendly regards to Americans are corrupted enemies in their eyes that deserve to be killed. I disagree with this philosophy immensely, but I think the word "insane" is a poor choice of words.
Even if Bush did do all this for OIL (I don't think he did), he isn't going to steal it. The US will BUY OIL and the money will go to improving the lives of Iraqis and not Saddam.
Let's hope so. The main people it seems that are profiting from this war is the employees of Halliburton.
Freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to protest, freedom to choose government and all the other stuff people in the west take for granted. They will also get infrastructure built and ofcourse, US dollars. In short, they'll become 'successful' similar to post war japan and germany.
Again, let's hope so. I don't really see that right now.
Slightly offtopic: I noticed that one of the links you provided was by a right-wing libertarian. I used to be one of those. I bought nearly all the books Ayn Rand wrote and everything. I honestly believed that greed was good, etc. Then I was diagnosed with mental illness (depression). That really changed my perspective, as many of the mentally ill are good-natured human beings who are undeservedly getting neglected by the US government.
Oops. I meant "peace of mind." I really need to get some sleep, but this discussion fascinates me.
yes they have to sacrifice and persevere until the violence settles down.
Well, of course. But I think that's going to take a while. Just a guess.
The fact that thousands are joining the army, the police or working as civil workers just shows how commited they are to rebuilding their country.
Thousands are also joining terrorist groups or fighting against the Americans. There are two sides to every story.
the chances of getting killed by a car bomb isn't as big as you make it out to be.
The chances of getting killed may be relatively small, but I didn't say the chances were large. I said that "peace of mind is worth more than money." The idea that you could be killed from a random car bomb or caught in the middle of a sudden battle would make many people very anxious.
From your own link:
"Same sources confirmed that a meeting was held between the chiefs of Al Hamamda tribe in Ramadi, Al Juboor in Tikrit, Al Gareer in Yousufyia and a branch from Al Janabyeen in Latifyiah to discuss situations in Fallujah, the flow of terrorists from outside Iraq into the city and the role of clerics in provoking violence and justifying murder and kidnap in the name of Islam. The chiefs showed determination to end this situation either peacfuly or by force.
Same sources pointed out that thousands of armed men from these tribes are ready to sweep the city of Fallujah, and that they have received letters from many respectable figures in Fallujah including some clerics that plead to the Iraqi tribes to save the citizens of Fallujah from the deteriorating condition under the rule of armed gangs and terrorists."
Yes, very stressful.
They will get so much in return if they stick by it.
Could you be more specific than "freedom and prosperity"? What would they get?
Except one way brings freedom and prosperity and the other way doesn't. Hmmm?
Has the war an Iraq brought freedom and prosperity to anyone?
Maybe if you're Dick Cheney. Or an American taking a high-risk job.
But to the average Iraqi? I'd say no. And no amount of "freedom and prosperity" is worth taking away your piece of mind. And I can imagine that with events like this taking place daily in Iraq, peace of mind is worth more than money.
howabout some intellectual honesty: the us does good and bad in the world, but mostly it defends itself. just like every other region in the world.
Yeah, I agree with that.
so when something like 9/11 happens, don't be surprised if the us responds militarily. in what world do you live in where a military response from the us is not appropriate or just, to prevent something like 9/11 from ever happening ever again?
You lost me here. Are we still talking about Iraq? Because Iraq really didn't have much to do with 9/11.
those who rally around the us flag and shout "rah rah rah! everything the us does is good!" are stupid. the mirror image of that is not intelligence, it's simply more stupidity: "rah rah rah! everything the us does is bad!"
Whoever said I said "everything the us does is bad!" The US has done a number of admirable things. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are two things that pop into mind. Many scientific studies have been done in the US that are good. I believe that liberating the Jews from the concentration camps was an excellent move in WWII. And those are just a few of the things I admire about the US. And it's important to note here that I am an American. I just happen to be a very left-wing American who disagrees with the war in Iraq.
so many propagandized closed minded sheep in this world.
Are you calling me a sheep? That's not cool. I'm going to stop reading right there. I do not appreciate resorting to namecalling.
Politics have moved, but you're still using the old economic parameters.
Some critics have argued that, because the universal political centre has moved to the right, our axes should correspondingly move to the right. This, however, would not indicate how far one way or the other society has shifted. It could not convey paradoxes such as the fact that, in the UK, New Labour occupies an economic position to the right of pre-Thatcher Conservatives. Where was the centre, for example, in Apartheid South Africa ? In Third Reich society, such a skewed analysis might show a Nazi opposed to the death chambers as representing liberal opinion.
Narrowing the standard political goalposts to accommodate merely the range of mainstream opinion within any given society at a given time is not only historically uninstructive; it is unscientific.
Many Iraqis wanted it and a free Iraq influences the rest of the middle east. Iran has been close to revolution for a long time, and with free countries on two of their borders, it may not be long before the silent majority in Iran revolt.
I agree that many Iraqis wanted a free Iraq -- free from Saddam Hussein. According to stuff I've read, however, the Shiite majority want to run the government. This could be problematic as far as the US is concerned, as the Shiites' priorities are different from the US.
Can you prove that there would have been less deaths?
I believe that was my point -- you can't prove one way or the other, so it's not the greatest point to bring up.
Saddam wasn't going anywhere and UN sanctions were killing more people than the first and second wars.
I don't like this rationalization: More deaths due to poor health care and lack of food is worse than less deaths due to war. Shouldn't we try to prevent both? Any preventable death is bad. People shouldn't be starving -- there's enough food in the world for everyone. War is hell. In this so-called civilized world, neither should occur. But they do, and that's not right.
so to war with iraq we go, to begin the the process of fixing the middle east. because september 11th shows that the middle east will export its problems to us, so it is our responsibility to fix the middle east, whether we deserve it or not."
You're right. Absolutely right. Every time a terrorist group with members in countries all over the world plans to bomb us, we should fix a few of the countries that may or may not have been involved. Because the USA's job is to fix countries that might be a threat to us in the future and turn these nations into carbon-copies of us. It's the American way, after all.
I believe Turkey is considered part of the Middle East, and IIRC, they can handle democracy quite well.
pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan being idyllic paradises
No one is arguing that. But Iraq was in much better shape, sadly, before we (the US) got involved with the UN embargo and the war on Iraq, which seems to be producing more terrorists than decreasing them. As for Afghanistan, it's true that civil rights were not protected under Taliban rule, but I currently don't see much evidence of us trying to rebuild Afghanistan. Most of the troops in that country seem to be have diverted to the Iraq crisis.
America safer with Saddam in power
Iraq posed no threat to the US as it had little, if any, connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11. Most of the terrorists on the planes were from Saudi Arabia! So why aren't we bombing that country? My guess? We're friends with the government there because of their mighty oil reserves.
less people dying from the next X amount of years under Bathist rule
How can you prove that? You can't.
a war which will spread freedom and liberty into the middle east
Freedom and liberty = freedom and liberty for Cheney and co to profit from getting involved in Iraq. No thanks.
1) Don't get drunk. I'm not saying don't drink, but don't get drunk. I believe the statistic goes that 1 in 5 girls are raped in college, and that alcohol is involved in most of the cases. Besides, don't you want to remember your fun and sexual experiences? I'm glad I remember mine.
2) Don't accept drinks from others or leave your drinks behind and pick them up later. I don't care if s/he's your best friend, turn it down and get your own drink. Doesn't matter what time of day it is. Be careful. If this doesn't make sense to you, reread #1.
3) Read "The Debt-Free Graduate", "You Are Smarter Than You Think!", all college advice books, and anything by Patrick Combs. Good advice there. Check them out at your college library or at the college bookstore. I ran into these my fifth year of college, and I wish I had read them sooner.
4) Major in your passion, not what your parents or teachers suggested you major in. I majored in Computer Science and I don't regret it. Unfortunately, I majored in it too late in my college career, and it didn't work out, so...
5) Always have a backup plan when things don't work out. If you end up not majoring in your passion for some reason, at least come out with a degree, even if it's a Bachelor in General Studies.
Are you more likely to apply to MIT because it has a women president?
Nah. I am likely to put her picture on my bedroom wall and praise her as a woman who is successful in leadership and the sciences. Sometimes I do feel like I'm the only woman in America who is interested in science and leadership. So, having a role model is great. But applying to a college is a very complicated matter that involves many more factors than what gender happens to be president there.
Seriously gentleman, move beyond the teenage years and enter into a discussion that isn't focused around the act of parading women. Sorry, it isn't funny, intelligent, and I think most readers would say that you are simply embarassing yourself.
Speaking as a heterosexual female in a committed relationship, even I enjoy watching pornography every once in a while. It's not a terrible thing. Besides, after you hang around male geeks for a while, you'll realize that many of them are seriously sexually deprived. Porn is all they have, which is really sad, actually. Makes me want to clone myself to satisfy the male geek population.;)
The ACM programming contest is an awful model for assessing coding ability. The entire contest is based on time pressures and it encourages writing bad code, not doing design work and not commenting anything (it all just wastes time).
Tsk, tsk. You think Dr. Rinewalt doesn't know that? There's value in both types of coding: the elegant, well-planned, well-thought out coding, and the quick last-minute hacks you have to do to make a deadline (like for the ACM). We occasionally ask him why the ACM contest promotes efficiency over elegance. Rinewalt says he wonders the same thing. You'd think he'd have some say over the matter, since he's been head judge for so long.
Write a java applet that does x with y functions using a hashtable. You can consult any paper materials you have on your person. No talking to anyone in the classroom except the teacher. You have an hour.
In my CS courses, tests in this format are given all the time. The Chairman of the TCU CS Department, Dr. Richard Rinewalt, has been head judge of the ACM programming contest-THAT programming contest-for several years. He supports this format and knows that it works. I believe it's reasonable to trust what he is doing.
Not like this will get modded up so late in the game, but, here goes.
Your post seems to go, "Other nations hate us because we decided to do x, which in hindsight was a bad decision."
For argument's sake, I will assume that everything you say is accurate. Even so, hindsight is always 20/20. Foresight is hazy at best. The United States government did the best it could with what it knew at the time. That is all that can be expected out of anyone. Anyone who expects otherwise is being unrealistic.
Re:Scientology knows how to manipulate Google
on
Search Engine Payola
·
· Score: 2
Slashdot Mirror
Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.
The better corporations realize that money isn't made from getting a customer, but maintaining good customer relationships with current customers. In this economy, no one can afford to provide poor customer service. I hope Verizon changes its policy to deal with the deaths of its current customers.
This will take science. It will take art. It will take innovation. It will take ambition.
It will also take the realization that the leading causes of death in the USA are all preventable:
Source: http://proxychi.baremetal.com/csdp.org/research/1238.pdf
There's only so much a doctor can do to stop the damage if the patient is already physically in poor health.
The political issue at hand is this: Should the government allow people to make irrational decisions when the mistakes can be costly or deadly? There is a movement called "soft paternalism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_paternalism) that basically argues that many people are making irrational decisions, so the government should gently nudge them into making rational ones. There are many books promoting this idea, including Nudge, The Paradox of Choice and Free Market Madness.
This sounds all nice and wonderful until you realize that it's ultimately politicians and bureaucrats that is deciding what is "rational" for a person to spend their money on -- like they're such great role models :p
I'll admit that my concept of our spending is probably skewed by intentionally misleading infographics and such, but this doesn't seem to jive with anything I've ever seen. Can someone explain how this is true, or point to something that does?
The cost of health care driving the US deficit and federal debt is actually old news:
http://www.iousa.com/ (30-minute version of the film film, highly engrossing)
http://www.pgpf.org/resources/PGPF_CitizensGuide_2009.pdf (Summary in PDF format)
we should fear the penguins now?
Well, this is an interesting question, and I can only speak from my own experience, but I personally feel it's more nurture than nature.
Next time you go shopping, go to the toy section of the store and look how boys' toys and girls' toys treat the subject of electricity. Last time I went, the boy's section had a toy that showed boys how to make a circuit, and the only toy in the girls' section that had anything to do with electricity was a magic genie lamp that required batteries to "magically" glow. And this was a Wal-Mart in a major American city. I also saw a lot of cool boys' toys that showed how to build complex structures. There was no equivalent in the girls' section. So, here we have boys' toys that encourage logic and engineering, while girls' toys equate science to "magic." Interesting.
Another problem is schools and school teachers. I remember in elementary and middle school when I expressed an interest in science and math, while my teachers would say, "But you're such a good writer." So, I was receiving explicit messages that writing was my strength and I should put those other things aside.
Then, there was college. I tried to major in computer science for a while, and then I realized that I had never taken the classes required for me to think logically. That was partially my fault. And while the computer science professors were helpful, the young men in the department who were my peers brushed me aside and treated me like I didn't exist. Eventually I started to wonder if I had the wrong genitalia to major in computer science. This attitude of mine led me to eventually switch to a major my high school teachers had prepared me for: English.
Now, I'm in the process of getting my Master's of Library Science. I'm taking a course required for my Master's degree, a class in basic computer applications (the Microsoft Office 2003 suite, basically). The class is a breeze, and it's being taught by a woman who knows how to program in various languages, including COBOL. She is encouraging me to go back to school to get a BS in some sort of science like I originally wanted. I'm thinking of majoring in physics with a minor in computer science. Maybe, I could get a Master's degree in Physics and be qualified to be a science librarian and help with research. I feel that if I had met my teacher earlier, I would have graduated with a computer science degree instead of an English degree. So, having strong role models for women in the sciences (real live ones, not just Ana Lovelace and Dr. Grace Hopper) is another major step for more women to be in the sciences.
The geek culture is one that I feel that women can adapt to, because I am a member of a Slackware online group that is mostly male, but I can flame and write jokes like the best of them. They treat me differently, it's true, but they treat me with a lot of respect because I am a woman that can hold on her own. So, IMHO, I do not feel that geek culture is a major impediment to women working on or with OSS, it's more of the major culture that discourages women from even being in OSS in the first place.
"The difficulty of formal logic was demonstrated in the monumental Principia Mathematica (1925) of Whitehead and Russell's, in which hundreds of pages of symbols were required before the statement 1 + 1 = 2 could be deduced."
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Logic.html
There are two sides but you have to look at the magnitudes. There are 100,000 in the new army alone. I don't think normal sane iraqis would go around blowing up iraqi children whose only crime is wanting to play football with american soldiers.
I don't know how many people have become terrorists or involved in warfare against US forces. I don't think anyone can put a number on that. However, I would argue that the terrorists are sane individuals. They just have a violent, extremist philosophy about who is an enemy and who isn't. Anyone in friendly regards to Americans are corrupted enemies in their eyes that deserve to be killed. I disagree with this philosophy immensely, but I think the word "insane" is a poor choice of words.
Even if Bush did do all this for OIL (I don't think he did), he isn't going to steal it. The US will BUY OIL and the money will go to improving the lives of Iraqis and not Saddam.
Let's hope so. The main people it seems that are profiting from this war is the employees of Halliburton.
Freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to protest, freedom to choose government and all the other stuff people in the west take for granted. They will also get infrastructure built and ofcourse, US dollars. In short, they'll become 'successful' similar to post war japan and germany.
Again, let's hope so. I don't really see that right now.
Slightly offtopic: I noticed that one of the links you provided was by a right-wing libertarian. I used to be one of those. I bought nearly all the books Ayn Rand wrote and everything. I honestly believed that greed was good, etc. Then I was diagnosed with mental illness (depression). That really changed my perspective, as many of the mentally ill are good-natured human beings who are undeservedly getting neglected by the US government.
A link for you to ponder:
Baghdad Year Zero.
Oops. I meant "peace of mind." I really need to get some sleep, but this discussion fascinates me.
yes they have to sacrifice and persevere until the violence settles down.
Well, of course. But I think that's going to take a while. Just a guess.
The fact that thousands are joining the army, the police or working as civil workers just shows how commited they are to rebuilding their country.
Thousands are also joining terrorist groups or fighting against the Americans. There are two sides to every story.
the chances of getting killed by a car bomb isn't as big as you make it out to be.
The chances of getting killed may be relatively small, but I didn't say the chances were large. I said that "peace of mind is worth more than money." The idea that you could be killed from a random car bomb or caught in the middle of a sudden battle would make many people very anxious.
From your own link:
"Same sources confirmed that a meeting was held between the chiefs of Al Hamamda tribe in Ramadi, Al Juboor in Tikrit, Al Gareer in Yousufyia and a branch from Al Janabyeen in Latifyiah to discuss situations in Fallujah, the flow of terrorists from outside Iraq into the city and the role of clerics in provoking violence and justifying murder and kidnap in the name of Islam. The chiefs showed determination to end this situation either peacfuly or by force.
Same sources pointed out that thousands of armed men from these tribes are ready to sweep the city of Fallujah, and that they have received letters from many respectable figures in Fallujah including some clerics that plead to the Iraqi tribes to save the citizens of Fallujah from the deteriorating condition under the rule of armed gangs and terrorists."
Yes, very stressful.
They will get so much in return if they stick by it.
Could you be more specific than "freedom and prosperity"? What would they get?
Except one way brings freedom and prosperity and the other way doesn't. Hmmm?
Has the war an Iraq brought freedom and prosperity to anyone?
Maybe if you're Dick Cheney. Or an American taking a high-risk job.
But to the average Iraqi? I'd say no. And no amount of "freedom and prosperity" is worth taking away your piece of mind. And I can imagine that with events like this taking place daily in Iraq, peace of mind is worth more than money.
howabout some intellectual honesty: the us does good and bad in the world, but mostly it defends itself. just like every other region in the world.
Yeah, I agree with that.
so when something like 9/11 happens, don't be surprised if the us responds militarily. in what world do you live in where a military response from the us is not appropriate or just, to prevent something like 9/11 from ever happening ever again?
You lost me here. Are we still talking about Iraq? Because Iraq really didn't have much to do with 9/11.
those who rally around the us flag and shout "rah rah rah! everything the us does is good!" are stupid. the mirror image of that is not intelligence, it's simply more stupidity: "rah rah rah! everything the us does is bad!"
Whoever said I said "everything the us does is bad!" The US has done a number of admirable things. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are two things that pop into mind. Many scientific studies have been done in the US that are good. I believe that liberating the Jews from the concentration camps was an excellent move in WWII. And those are just a few of the things I admire about the US. And it's important to note here that I am an American. I just happen to be a very left-wing American who disagrees with the war in Iraq.
so many propagandized closed minded sheep in this world.
Are you calling me a sheep? That's not cool. I'm going to stop reading right there. I do not appreciate resorting to namecalling.
From FAQ#21:
Politics have moved, but you're still using the old economic parameters.
Some critics have argued that, because the universal political centre has moved to the right, our axes should correspondingly move to the right. This, however, would not indicate how far one way or the other society has shifted. It could not convey paradoxes such as the fact that, in the UK, New Labour occupies an economic position to the right of pre-Thatcher Conservatives. Where was the centre, for example, in Apartheid South Africa ? In Third Reich society, such a skewed analysis might show a Nazi opposed to the death chambers as representing liberal opinion.
Narrowing the standard political goalposts to accommodate merely the range of mainstream opinion within any given society at a given time is not only historically uninstructive; it is unscientific.
Major political candidates are never very far from the center these days, and the voting public reflects that.
Look at this picture and see how far to the right both Bush and Kerry are. Not exactly at the center.
Many Iraqis wanted it and a free Iraq influences the rest of the middle east. Iran has been close to revolution for a long time, and with free countries on two of their borders, it may not be long before the silent majority in Iran revolt.
I agree that many Iraqis wanted a free Iraq -- free from Saddam Hussein. According to stuff I've read, however, the Shiite majority want to run the government. This could be problematic as far as the US is concerned, as the Shiites' priorities are different from the US.
Can you prove that there would have been less deaths?
I believe that was my point -- you can't prove one way or the other, so it's not the greatest point to bring up.
Saddam wasn't going anywhere and UN sanctions were killing more people than the first and second wars.
I don't like this rationalization: More deaths due to poor health care and lack of food is worse than less deaths due to war. Shouldn't we try to prevent both? Any preventable death is bad. People shouldn't be starving -- there's enough food in the world for everyone. War is hell. In this so-called civilized world, neither should occur. But they do, and that's not right.
so to war with iraq we go, to begin the the process of fixing the middle east. because september 11th shows that the middle east will export its problems to us, so it is our responsibility to fix the middle east, whether we deserve it or not."
You're right. Absolutely right. Every time a terrorist group with members in countries all over the world plans to bomb us, we should fix a few of the countries that may or may not have been involved. Because the USA's job is to fix countries that might be a threat to us in the future and turn these nations into carbon-copies of us. It's the American way, after all.
Arabs not being able to handle democracy
I believe Turkey is considered part of the Middle East, and IIRC, they can handle democracy quite well.
pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan being idyllic paradises
No one is arguing that. But Iraq was in much better shape, sadly, before we (the US) got involved with the UN embargo and the war on Iraq, which seems to be producing more terrorists than decreasing them. As for Afghanistan, it's true that civil rights were not protected under Taliban rule, but I currently don't see much evidence of us trying to rebuild Afghanistan. Most of the troops in that country seem to be have diverted to the Iraq crisis.
America safer with Saddam in power
Iraq posed no threat to the US as it had little, if any, connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11. Most of the terrorists on the planes were from Saudi Arabia! So why aren't we bombing that country? My guess? We're friends with the government there because of their mighty oil reserves.
less people dying from the next X amount of years under Bathist rule
How can you prove that? You can't.
a war which will spread freedom and liberty into the middle east
Freedom and liberty = freedom and liberty for Cheney and co to profit from getting involved in Iraq. No thanks.
about why Bush really wanted to invade Iraq? Money? Oil? Freedom for the Iraqi people? Hegemony? Power? What?
Yeah, but you actually got a response from a female. :)
1) Don't get drunk. I'm not saying don't drink, but don't get drunk. I believe the statistic goes that 1 in 5 girls are raped in college, and that alcohol is involved in most of the cases. Besides, don't you want to remember your fun and sexual experiences? I'm glad I remember mine.
2) Don't accept drinks from others or leave your drinks behind and pick them up later. I don't care if s/he's your best friend, turn it down and get your own drink. Doesn't matter what time of day it is. Be careful. If this doesn't make sense to you, reread #1.
3) Read "The Debt-Free Graduate", "You Are Smarter Than You Think!", all college advice books, and anything by Patrick Combs. Good advice there. Check them out at your college library or at the college bookstore. I ran into these my fifth year of college, and I wish I had read them sooner.
4) Major in your passion, not what your parents or teachers suggested you major in. I majored in Computer Science and I don't regret it. Unfortunately, I majored in it too late in my college career, and it didn't work out, so...
5) Always have a backup plan when things don't work out. If you end up not majoring in your passion for some reason, at least come out with a degree, even if it's a Bachelor in General Studies.
Are you more likely to apply to MIT because it has a women president?
Nah. I am likely to put her picture on my bedroom wall and praise her as a woman who is successful in leadership and the sciences. Sometimes I do feel like I'm the only woman in America who is interested in science and leadership. So, having a role model is great. But applying to a college is a very complicated matter that involves many more factors than what gender happens to be president there.
Seriously gentleman, move beyond the teenage years and enter into a discussion that isn't focused around the act of parading women. Sorry, it isn't funny, intelligent, and I think most readers would say that you are simply embarassing yourself.
;)
You must be new here.
Speaking as a heterosexual female in a committed relationship, even I enjoy watching pornography every once in a while. It's not a terrible thing. Besides, after you hang around male geeks for a while, you'll realize that many of them are seriously sexually deprived. Porn is all they have, which is really sad, actually. Makes me want to clone myself to satisfy the male geek population.
The ACM programming contest is an awful model for assessing coding ability. The entire contest is based on time pressures and it encourages writing bad code, not doing design work and not commenting anything (it all just wastes time).
Tsk, tsk. You think Dr. Rinewalt doesn't know that? There's value in both types of coding: the elegant, well-planned, well-thought out coding, and the quick last-minute hacks you have to do to make a deadline (like for the ACM). We occasionally ask him why the ACM contest promotes efficiency over elegance. Rinewalt says he wonders the same thing. You'd think he'd have some say over the matter, since he's been head judge for so long.
Write a java applet that does x with y functions using a hashtable. You can consult any paper materials you have on your person. No talking to anyone in the classroom except the teacher. You have an hour.
In my CS courses, tests in this format are given all the time. The Chairman of the TCU CS Department, Dr. Richard Rinewalt, has been head judge of the ACM programming contest-THAT programming contest-for several years. He supports this format and knows that it works. I believe it's reasonable to trust what he is doing.
Not like this will get modded up so late in the game, but, here goes.
Your post seems to go, "Other nations hate us because we decided to do x, which in hindsight was a bad decision."
For argument's sake, I will assume that everything you say is accurate. Even so, hindsight is always 20/20. Foresight is hazy at best. The United States government did the best it could with what it knew at the time. That is all that can be expected out of anyone. Anyone who expects otherwise is being unrealistic.
I can tell they tried, but it's not quite working. Not only is #5 on a scientology search an opposing web site, but at the top of the page is:
Society > Religion and Spirituality > Opposing Views > Scientology
Information does want to be free (as in speech).