watched U.S. Marines deliver food aid after typhoon Yoyang in 2004. I kept wondering, "where's the aid workers from Japan? Where's the aid from China? Where's the aid from Taiwan? Where's ANY OTHER COUNTRY AT ALL?".
Maybe you didn't see anyone there besides American military relief. Maybe that's a function of where you were, maybe you weren't looking very hard, I don't know. But several other nations were there, including Japan.
They did not have this attitude about the U.S., and they were glad she was going to marry an American. This is a fair characterization of attitudes there.
People's attitudes don't change the historical reality. Both the U.S. and Japan have, in the past, done horrible things in the Philippines. The U.S. atrocities were a little longer ago and were less horrific. But they were still atrocities. Both the U.S. and Japan now send significant aid to the Philippines.
If you believe American has victimized the Philippines (for example), and this matters to you (you care), are you willing to help the Philippines?
I generally do my international charitable contributions through the Red Cross. My money's tight now (I'm about to spend the spring in Japan, doing some informal study of the culture behind the martial and healing arts I've studied), but if $20 or so can be leveraged to some good, I could PayPal you or something.
Some of my in-laws were killed by Japanese soldiers who invaded the Philippines.
And just a few decades before that, a lot of (estimated 250,000 to 1,000,000) Filipinos were killed by American invaders. Americans waged a "scorched earth" campaign, burning whole vllages, using torture, and establishing concentration camps in which disease and hunger killed many.
It's quite likely that some of your in-laws' parents or uncles and aunts, were killed by Americans (directly or indirectly).
Also check out the history of the famed Colt M1911, a gun inspired by the difficulty of killing Moro resistance fighters.
It's offensive to dismiss Japan (or any country)'s racially-motivated invasion and brutalization of it's neighbors as "only slightly more evil than..." (the USA or any other force which clearly did not do this).
Except that the U.S. did do it, killed hundreds of thousands of Filipinos in what many called a "nigger-killing business".
the US granted independence to the Philippines in 1936
The Commonwealth of the Philippines was, as the name says, a Commonwealth of the U.S., not an independent nation. It left the U.S. with the military bases and economic controls it wanted. Independence was not granted until after WWII.
Japan believed in a divine right for them to rule the world
...while America, of course, never had any such notions of a divinely mandated, obvious and manifest, destiny. Heh.
When a federal court sends you a subpoena that means "Show up or else!"
When a federal counrt sends you a subpoena about something that is not a federal matter, that means you are living in a police state, or at least a wannabe one.
Yes, living in a police state means "do what we tell you or else!". The question is, do you cooperate with the police state, or are you courageous take the "or else!" option?
you mean an unprovoked attack by an imperialistic country
You need to learn the history of how American forces came to be based in Hawaii.
And how Japan came out of its period of isolation. In some ways, Pearl Harbor was set in motion when Perry's "Black Ships" steamed into Tokyo Bay.
The Pacific conflict in WWII was a battle between two imperial powers. The Pearl Harbor attack did not come out of nowhere, but was the climax of a long chain of trade embargos, freezing/stealing assets, and conflict between two nations trying to control territory that didn't rightfully belong to either.
Certainly American imperialism was a gentler sort, but that means only that we have a case of the lesser of two evils, not the good versus evil of our popular WWII mythology.
where does it say he doesn't have to reveal his source material?
Protection of sources is part and parcel of freedom of the press.
A more relevant question is, where does it say the federal government can compel anyone to testify under any circumstances? The only power to compel testimony is mentioned in Amendment VI, that a person accused of a crime shall have "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor".
1812...was in a completely unjustified war that was started primarily as an attempt to steal Canada from Britain while it was distracted by Napoleon.
The attack on the British territory of Canada was in response to the impressment of thousands American sailors into the Royal Navy. Britian was failing to recognize Americans as citizens of a new nation, trying to renege on the Treaty of Paris.
The idea that the war was an attempt to steal Canada looms large in Canadian mythology, but isn't really accurate.
Some prisoners went insane. Abdughaffor was one of them. He would throw himself against the door and scream. He tried to hang himself. He wouldn't eat. He became somebody Umarov did not know. Others took off their clothes and sat naked in their cells. "These people became like children," he says. "They did not understand their reality."
...
"I was taken to the dark room," he says. "The soldiers took all my clothes and left me there." The room was made of iron; it measured three feet by five feet. At night, frigid air was pumped through a hole in its ceiling, and its small window was covered by Plexiglas so the air couldn't leave. Two electric coils provided dim light, and during the day, they were turned up to heat the cell to a very high temperature. But night was worse. "Some prisoners wouldn't last the night and had to be taken to the doctor," he says. "They kept me there for 10 days--and for no reason."
...
"What I've already said should be enough for those who want to know about this prison," he says softly. "It was like being in a zoo, with people coming to stare and laugh at you." I keep pressing. His voice rises. "There is no point in telling more of these stories. Such a prison has never existed in the history of mankind. No one has ever written about such a prison. Why did they keep a man for two years with no reason? Why? They caught me and kept me as a prisoner of war. What war, may I ask? When was I involved? I was sleeping when they came and dragged me out of my bed. People who understand the laws will have already made up their minds about who is who."
if he says GSM is based on DRM (protection) and music content should use a system like the one used in GSM, then he is advocating DRM (protection), isn't he?
It's impossible to determine what he means, because he's basing his argument on untruths.
His assertation that digital signatures are a form of DRM is bogus. DRM refers to schemes that either restrict hardware to prevent it from acting as a general-purpose computing device, or that restrict freedom of speech and of the press to prevent certain "secret keys" from being distributed.
His assertation that digital signatures are a form of DRM is simply bogus.
GSM has fsck-all to do with DRM. GSM uses an encryption scheme, yes; DRM uses an encryption scheme also. So what? My knife and my guitar both use steel in their construction.
Dude, all you have to do is have two people in different rooms and have one of them transmit numbers to the other. Won't even ask for 100% success... 95% is more than enough
But that was never their claim.
They claims may have been (probably were) bad, based on bad analysis and/or faulty data. But to argue that inablity of anyone to demonstrate reliable claravoyance has any bearing on these guys' claims of small statistical anomalies in random mechanical processes, is either intellectually dishonest or the result of great confusion.
That requires a coordinated firing of neurons. How did he cause these neurons to fire in such a manner? Mind over matter?
Your question illustrates the problem of mixing models.
When you're dealing at the level of neurons, there is no "he" to do anything. To effectively use the biochemical model to analyze phenomena, you have to stick to discussions of cells and chemicals. If you want to introduce the concept of "person" into the picture, the best you can do it draw a circle around a bunch of cells and chemicals and say, "that's him".
It's as if you were to ask, "how does a A above middle C make that guitar string vibrate at 440Hz?" If you want to introduce music theory into a discussion of the vibrations of some object, the best you can do it draw a circle around a motions and say, "that's an A".
That of cource doesn't mean that persons or melodies do not exist, or that either has some metaphysical component. Only that biochemistry is not a good way to fully understand persons, and that vibrations are not a good way to fully understand songs.
No, it's not. It is in fact a very lousy hypothesis, having no explanatory power; positing a "Designer" to explain the origin of the universe or of life, one then is confronted with the question of the origin of the Designer. Net questions answered: zero.
If you were really thinking scientifically you would take all theories into account
Thinking scientifically means rejecting hypothesises that are either out of line with observation, or that posit entities beyond the minimum needed for an explanation.
If it turned out that 13% of ilegal immigrants did indeed have criminal records, surely it's just a statement of fact?
There is a difference between "13% of people here illegally have been convicted of a crime in their home country," and "13% of people who are here illegally and who make enough trouble or slip up enough to get caught been convicted of a crime in their home country".
There's also a huge leap between "have a criminal record" and "have commited sexual assault".
The Kyl quote seems to skip lightly over both of these differences.
i don't think keeping a dna database is much a problem.
I think that in a free nation, any citizen not convicted of a crime who
is confronted by a government agent trying to remove any part of his or her
flesh, ought to be encouraged to break said agent's arm.
The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin. No medical procedure, no
matter how trivial, can legitimately be forced on an free innocent adult.
people just fear that the government would abuse this system and possibly set people up and what not. it just shows people don't trust democracy any more and that they definitely don't trust the people that they voted into power.
In the United States, democracy was never trusted. That's why we have a
Constitution instead of straight-up mob rule, in theory at least.
Of course this will be abused. The United States government is the
organization that brought you COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, the Bay of Pigs, the
Vietnam debacle, Iran-Contra, the Iraq debacle (part I and part II), Gitmo,
and extraordinary rendition, to name a few of its most recent and greatest
hits.
But you can't expand "sci fi" to "speculative fiction".
No, but that's not the question. The statement "Harry Potter is neither SF nor sci fi" depends on what SF stands for. If "SF" stands for "speculative fiction", as some argue it should, the statement is incorrect. Harry Potter is speculative fiction - fiction occuring in a setting that is not our world, fiction that asks "what if..." not just about characters and plot but about the setting, about the universe.
What's wrong with using the word "fantasy" for stories about wizards and dragons?
Nothing. But that doesn't answer the broader questions of categorization. Is "fantasy" another word for "swords and sorcery", or it another word for "speculative fiction"? In the later defintion, science fiction, swords and sorcery, supernatural horror, superhero stories, Twilight Zone-type oddities, all are types of "fantasy".
Or roll your own. We needed to be able to integrate ours with our bespoke messaging system, and it didn't take long to knock out something from scratch in PHP and PostgreSQL. We're about the same size as your group.
Unlike EVERY other species on the planet, we allow our weak to survive and persist.
But the very question of who's weak is changed by technology.
I was born with some sort of pigeon-toed or club-foot defect. I'm not sure exactly what, because as an infant I wore a brace that twisted my legs back into "normal" position, I have no recollection of it.
Now I'm a karate black belt who can deliver pretty good kicks with those "deformed" legs. So who's "weaker", me or the guy born with perfect legs but who doesn't use them for anything more strenuous for a walk to the fridge for another beer?
Growth of the population is a good thing, especially since most "western" countries are actually facing a declining population
No, a declining population would be a good thing, since we are approaching or have already exceeded the planet's sustainable carrying capacity for industrial humanity.
A declining population means more land, more water, and more energy per capita.
The fact that our economic system requires an ever-expanding population just shows that our economic system is fscked up, is divorced from reality; not that the underlying principles of biology and physics have been repealed for the human race.
In the broader market among all companies with at least $100-million in market value, about 45 percent pay a dividend, up from 39 percent six years ago, according to Zacks research. The larger the company, the more likely it is to pay a dividend.
Less than half. Thus, most stocks do not pay dividends. (This is not even including many "micro-cap" or "nano-cap" stocks below $100 million; given the trend that smaller companies are less likely to pay dividends, including these would bring the average down even more.)
No, because the value of a company's stock is based on real assets, liabilities, and income: all of which are easily translatable to real money, and which commonly pay cash dividends.
Not for a long time. Most do not pay dividends, and their value has little relation to any actual assets a company might have.
Stocks are like baseball cards: pieces of paper with collector's value.
Given the way the law is written, the relevant question is not "are bulletins e-mail", but whether a bulletin is "an electronic message that is sent to an e-mail address and transmitted between two or more telecommunications devices, computers, or electronic devices capable of receiving electronic messages".
The interesting thing is that Myspace uses e-mail addresses as login ids. I suppose they will argue that any message to a Myspace user is therefore "sent to an e-mail address" even though it is not sent via SMTP.
He's admitted to blowing up a civilian airplane and is a fugitive from Venezuela.
I think you are confused. Padilla has nothing to do with Venezuela and as far as I can find has admitted to no such thing as blowing up a plane. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were still wondering after you got back to somewhere with net access (I'm assuming that was sparse after such a disaster), a few minutes with Google would have told you that Japan sent money, doctors, and relief workers. China, Singapore, Korea, Belgium, Germany, and the U.S. all provided significant aid.
More recently, Japan has sent one million dollar in food aid for victims of Reming.
As for ongoing aid, here is the JICA page for the Philippines. And here's the Ministry of Foreign Affairs page on Japan-Philippines, chock full of stats and press releases.
Maybe you didn't see anyone there besides American military relief. Maybe that's a function of where you were, maybe you weren't looking very hard, I don't know. But several other nations were there, including Japan.
People's attitudes don't change the historical reality. Both the U.S. and Japan have, in the past, done horrible things in the Philippines. The U.S. atrocities were a little longer ago and were less horrific. But they were still atrocities. Both the U.S. and Japan now send significant aid to the Philippines.
I generally do my international charitable contributions through the Red Cross. My money's tight now (I'm about to spend the spring in Japan, doing some informal study of the culture behind the martial and healing arts I've studied), but if $20 or so can be leveraged to some good, I could PayPal you or something.
And just a few decades before that, a lot of (estimated 250,000 to 1,000,000) Filipinos were killed by American invaders. Americans waged a "scorched earth" campaign, burning whole vllages, using torture, and establishing concentration camps in which disease and hunger killed many.
It's quite likely that some of your in-laws' parents or uncles and aunts, were killed by Americans (directly or indirectly).
Also check out the history of the famed Colt M1911, a gun inspired by the difficulty of killing Moro resistance fighters.
Except that the U.S. did do it, killed hundreds of thousands of Filipinos in what many called a "nigger-killing business".
The Commonwealth of the Philippines was, as the name says, a Commonwealth of the U.S., not an independent nation. It left the U.S. with the military bases and economic controls it wanted. Independence was not granted until after WWII.
When a federal counrt sends you a subpoena about something that is not a federal matter, that means you are living in a police state, or at least a wannabe one.
Yes, living in a police state means "do what we tell you or else!". The question is, do you cooperate with the police state, or are you courageous take the "or else!" option?
You need to learn the history of how American forces came to be based in Hawaii.
And how Japan came out of its period of isolation. In some ways, Pearl Harbor was set in motion when Perry's "Black Ships" steamed into Tokyo Bay.
The Pacific conflict in WWII was a battle between two imperial powers. The Pearl Harbor attack did not come out of nowhere, but was the climax of a long chain of trade embargos, freezing/stealing assets, and conflict between two nations trying to control territory that didn't rightfully belong to either.
Certainly American imperialism was a gentler sort, but that means only that we have a case of the lesser of two evils, not the good versus evil of our popular WWII mythology.
Protection of sources is part and parcel of freedom of the press.
A more relevant question is, where does it say the federal government can compel anyone to testify under any circumstances? The only power to compel testimony is mentioned in Amendment VI, that a person accused of a crime shall have "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor".
The attack on the British territory of Canada was in response to the impressment of thousands American sailors into the Royal Navy. Britian was failing to recognize Americans as citizens of a new nation, trying to renege on the Treaty of Paris.
The idea that the war was an attempt to steal Canada looms large in Canadian mythology, but isn't really accurate.
What do POW camps have to do with the concentration camps for citizens of Japanese ancestry to which the GP post was refering?
Yes, we mostly outsource the beatings to other prisons. Gitmo's torture is more psychological.
It's impossible to determine what he means, because he's basing his argument on untruths.
His assertation that digital signatures are a form of DRM is bogus. DRM refers to schemes that either restrict hardware to prevent it from acting as a general-purpose computing device, or that restrict freedom of speech and of the press to prevent certain "secret keys" from being distributed.
His assertation that digital signatures are a form of DRM is simply bogus.
GSM has fsck-all to do with DRM. GSM uses an encryption scheme, yes; DRM uses an encryption scheme also. So what? My knife and my guitar both use steel in their construction.
But that was never their claim.
They claims may have been (probably were) bad, based on bad analysis and/or faulty data. But to argue that inablity of anyone to demonstrate reliable claravoyance has any bearing on these guys' claims of small statistical anomalies in random mechanical processes, is either intellectually dishonest or the result of great confusion.
Your question illustrates the problem of mixing models.
When you're dealing at the level of neurons, there is no "he" to do anything. To effectively use the biochemical model to analyze phenomena, you have to stick to discussions of cells and chemicals. If you want to introduce the concept of "person" into the picture, the best you can do it draw a circle around a bunch of cells and chemicals and say, "that's him".
It's as if you were to ask, "how does a A above middle C make that guitar string vibrate at 440Hz?" If you want to introduce music theory into a discussion of the vibrations of some object, the best you can do it draw a circle around a motions and say, "that's an A".
That of cource doesn't mean that persons or melodies do not exist, or that either has some metaphysical component. Only that biochemistry is not a good way to fully understand persons, and that vibrations are not a good way to fully understand songs.
No, it's not. It is in fact a very lousy hypothesis, having no explanatory power; positing a "Designer" to explain the origin of the universe or of life, one then is confronted with the question of the origin of the Designer. Net questions answered: zero.
Thinking scientifically means rejecting hypothesises that are either out of line with observation, or that posit entities beyond the minimum needed for an explanation.
There is a difference between "13% of people here illegally have been convicted of a crime in their home country," and "13% of people who are here illegally and who make enough trouble or slip up enough to get caught been convicted of a crime in their home country".
There's also a huge leap between "have a criminal record" and "have commited sexual assault".
The Kyl quote seems to skip lightly over both of these differences.
I think that in a free nation, any citizen not convicted of a crime who is confronted by a government agent trying to remove any part of his or her flesh, ought to be encouraged to break said agent's arm.
The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin. No medical procedure, no matter how trivial, can legitimately be forced on an free innocent adult.
In the United States, democracy was never trusted. That's why we have a Constitution instead of straight-up mob rule, in theory at least.
Of course this will be abused. The United States government is the organization that brought you COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam debacle, Iran-Contra, the Iraq debacle (part I and part II), Gitmo, and extraordinary rendition, to name a few of its most recent and greatest hits.
No, but that's not the question. The statement "Harry Potter is neither SF nor sci fi" depends on what SF stands for. If "SF" stands for "speculative fiction", as some argue it should, the statement is incorrect. Harry Potter is speculative fiction - fiction occuring in a setting that is not our world, fiction that asks "what if..." not just about characters and plot but about the setting, about the universe.
Nothing. But that doesn't answer the broader questions of categorization. Is "fantasy" another word for "swords and sorcery", or it another word for "speculative fiction"? In the later defintion, science fiction, swords and sorcery, supernatural horror, superhero stories, Twilight Zone-type oddities, all are types of "fantasy".
Depends on whether yo expand "SF" to "speculative fiction" or to "science fiction".
There are indeed. Just don't expect to find them in relationships with your employers.
The classic is GNATS.
Or roll your own. We needed to be able to integrate ours with our bespoke messaging system, and it didn't take long to knock out something from scratch in PHP and PostgreSQL. We're about the same size as your group.
Indeed, "orientate" is a perfectly cromulent word.
But the very question of who's weak is changed by technology.
I was born with some sort of pigeon-toed or club-foot defect. I'm not sure exactly what, because as an infant I wore a brace that twisted my legs back into "normal" position, I have no recollection of it.
Now I'm a karate black belt who can deliver pretty good kicks with those "deformed" legs. So who's "weaker", me or the guy born with perfect legs but who doesn't use them for anything more strenuous for a walk to the fridge for another beer?
No, a declining population would be a good thing, since we are approaching or have already exceeded the planet's sustainable carrying capacity for industrial humanity.
A declining population means more land, more water, and more energy per capita.
The fact that our economic system requires an ever-expanding population just shows that our economic system is fscked up, is divorced from reality; not that the underlying principles of biology and physics have been repealed for the human race.
Can't speak to what happens in Canada, but in the U.S. around 45% of stocks pay dividends:
Less than half. Thus, most stocks do not pay dividends. (This is not even including many "micro-cap" or "nano-cap" stocks below $100 million; given the trend that smaller companies are less likely to pay dividends, including these would bring the average down even more.)
Not for a long time. Most do not pay dividends, and their value has little relation to any actual assets a company might have.
Stocks are like baseball cards: pieces of paper with collector's value.
Given the way the law is written, the relevant question is not "are bulletins e-mail", but whether a bulletin is "an electronic message that is sent to an e-mail address and transmitted between two or more telecommunications devices, computers, or electronic devices capable of receiving electronic messages".
The interesting thing is that Myspace uses e-mail addresses as login ids. I suppose they will argue that any message to a Myspace user is therefore "sent to an e-mail address" even though it is not sent via SMTP.
Constitution? Dude, American Idol's on and I got a pizza on the way, screw politics.
"Bread and circuses"? WTF are you talking about? I just want to veg out in front of the tube and eat my Domino's, leave me alone.
I think you are confused. Padilla has nothing to do with Venezuela and as far as I can find has admitted to no such thing as blowing up a plane. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.