Just save yourself a lot of trouble and ignore him.
it is hard to decide when to discuss and when to ignore. that is something I have not found an answer to, yet. I do not know whether his points are legit, what his real life experience is.
some general points, in other discussions: When is a comment a troll? Should I try to change the mind of Zealots? Isn't it futile? Should I protect other readers from a Zealot's false information ?
i did not now that in a discussion it is me who has to provide facts which prove and support my counter-parts position. a bunch of stereotypes and taken-for-granted suppositions are not facts, either.
MC simulations typically have value only when used in large runs. Without a reasonable number of simulations, you usually end up with very poor statistics for your outcome. A single shoot of the roulet wheel tells you nothing. Ten million shots can come close to simulating an acutal event.
Do you know why you decided to do ten million simulations? Why not one million or just one thousand? When is the sample size large enough? Depends on the event.
For certain distributions the minimum sample size can be easily calculated based on the parameters of a test sample. The final sample size varies with the certainty coefficient and a chosen maximal estimation error. Excel has 64K rows, if the minimum sample size is smaller, it will do just fine. My last simulation needed an n.min == 1443 , not ten million. ( testing AVG +/-5%, 95% certainty )
(OTOH in an other simulation n.min == 69K)
I second that demand.
there is no need to patronize around. Excel MC beats deterministic business forcasts based on i-wish-so values, anytime. (that was the problem in the article.) we are not trying to do rocket science here.
The first distortion is the use of point values and simple arithmetic instead of probability distributions and statistical measures. So far as I know, there's no off-the-shelf spreadsheet product--certainly none in common use--that provides for input of numbers as uncertain quantities, even though almost all of our decisions rest on forecasts or on speculations.
I am a student of this university : http://www.sgh.waw.pl/ Currently I am having a course in the use of Excel for prediction purposes. We do a lot of different case studies. We use Monte Carlo simulations, statistical tests, Markov chains and so on. We always discuss risk (variance, value-at-risk and so on). Excel is our basic tool and it is fine. We use different tools for specific purposes: Best-Fit for distribution fitting.
It is not a flaw of the tool, it is a flaw of the user. As someone said, give a monkey a PC instead of a type writer and you will get digital bullshit. I can only demand that people without proper education are not allowed to deliver multi-million business forcasts.
Alright, a decent question! You're presumption of what would happen is flawed, however. I'm not saying they would "embrace them with open arms" (remember?), but the violence coming from Israel would cease. Ghettos? The Palestinians have demonstrated that the closer they allow them to be, the more Israelis DIE! That's a pretty strong motovation to put as much distance as they can between them and those that would kill them! If they stop the violence, Israel would stop the violence. Then you could figure out how to proceed. The Palestians don't want to end the violence. They want to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet. That position will lead to their destruction and perhaps the destruction of many more peoples. Sad but true.
the following may seem to be naive, but i have heard the following explanation. in arab countries in is common to make a fuzz about an issue and then settle for the modest solution. like haggling in the bazar. the merchants make horrenduously high demands, but settles for the buyers proposition. the "destroy Israel" thing may be a posture. it is a ralling call, not a long term goal.
in fact, the Pals have been very ineffective at causing REAL damage (unlike al-Kaida, which really wants to maximize damage). the PLO is not a religious/ideological organization. it is a national organization. bin Laden does not care how many Saudis die because of his actions. he is an outlaw, and has no homeland, no nationals to care about. the Pals have families in place, which would be open to an indiscriminate blowback, if they were to try a really massive attack on Tel Aviv. (chemical/biological/nuclear)
As for how to enjoy peace in the Middle east (which I believe is the essence of your question,) I don't know. The Palestians must give up violence. The Israelis must also commit to peace as well. As for what I believe will happen, I believe the Palestinian people will be largely destroyed. And that is a shameful crime. A crime with blood on many hands, Palestinian and Israeli alike...
I AGREE that this is the most possible outcome. i have no illusions on the difference of power.
Perhaps a multinational force to keep the peace? Then what? Arafat doesn't want to share.
Nope, I don't have the answer either. Better than I have tried and failed. agreed. it is difficult to negotiate with a party that can not control it's own militants. Arafat can not control Hamas. OTOH, every attack on Hamas takes more authority away from Arafat. To hold it, he has to take a more radical posture. he can not arrest Hamas (which are his competitors for people's minds), because he would be labelled national traitor / colaborator.
And I like how you said we like sarcasm, implying I am alone in my other positions. this is a misunderstanding. i did not imply that. actuall it was replying sarcasm on my part.
Very good underhanded dishonest posturing! If you can't attack your opponent's argument, attack your opponent! (Yes, I did it too, but at least I labled it as a joke...) the trees/Volvo thing was a joke, not a personal attack.
OK, that's all you'll get from me on this thread. I really didn't want to get into it to begin with. I really didn't want to come off as a political provocateur. I know this issue is a hot button... But you put up so much effort!;) Thanks, it's been fun.
i think we managed to carve out some common ground.
Israel wants to distance themselves (literally) from the killers of Palestine. To argue by introducing a flawed presumption is dishonest. (You did that with the "open arms" reference, too. I never said that. There's too much hatred to get over first.)
"open arms" is a shorter way to say the following: "they would be welcome to participate in the economic, social, and political makeup of the society at large..." you really said that here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=101855&cid=868 6723
I agree that there is hatred. on both sides.
You attempted to justify Palestinian violence. That is an example of Palestinian violence. True, it's not the usual flavor of Palestinian violence. Most of their bombers tend to be of legal age. But it is a legitimate incident to bring up because it is part and parcel consistent with the MO of Palestinian terror. Remove the age reference, and it's pretty much identical to hundreds of other bombings. I will give you one point. The child wasn't 12. He was 14.
thank you for the link. fact accepted. i do not try to justify that particular bombing. using children is always inexcusable, because they are not able to make a mature choice.
Are you suggesting Palestinians vote for their leaders? Yes, technically they do, but I would suggest PNA elections aren't nearly as democratic as US or Western European democracies. Was Arafat opposed in the election? (I truly don't know.) Oh yes, Arafat... A known killer . I would also suggest that any constituency that would elect Arafat is morally bankrupt for some reason. Or perhaps the elections were kind of like the iraqis electing Saddam year after year? I do not know enough about them to suggest the PNA elections are a farce, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. The PNA was the PLO, for crying out loud...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arafat On January 20, 1996, Arafat was elected president of the PA, with an overwhelming 87% majority (the only other candidate being Samiha Khalil). Considering allegations that most of the opposition movements did not participate in the elections, and numerous incompatibilities of the elections with the democratic principle, many have claimed the elections to be fabricated. Independent international observers however reported the elections to have been free and fair. Following international pressure, further elections were announced for January 2002, but were later postponed, citing the tense situation and ongoing Israeli restrictions to freedom and movement as reasons.
RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) Voters had turned out in phenomenal numbers, and Yasser Arafat was racing toward a landslide victory. With 60 percent of the ballots counted under the watchful eyes of international observers, Arafat received 85 percent of the votes in the historic and mostly peaceful exercise of selecting a president for Palestine under self-rule. Arafat's only opponent, 72-year-old social worker Samiha Khalil, picked up 10 percent of the votes, the Palestinian election commission said early Sunday. Voter turnout was projected at 90 percent in the Gaza Strip and 85 percent in the West Bank, according to the election commission.
You side-stepped the question. As for the incidents you bring up, they are unfortunate, but they are all one-offs. They are not examples of standard MO's. I can find many instances of rape and murder in any town in the US, but that is not the normal experience for most US citizens. Your examples don't mean anything in the big picture (unlike my bomber reference, except, as I mentioned, the age of the bomber).
a standard modus operandi:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtm l?itemNo=363483&sw=Twilight+Zone+ Not an individual case
I certainly do not think that Israel is without blame. Having said that, anyone that bothers to learn the facts will quickly adopt the same opinion that I have. I see two sides indiscriminately trying to kill each other. That is what the fatality numbers show. But only one side is taking from the other the means of living (like uprooting olive trees).
I can agree with you that there are Palestinians who are so obsessed with with killing, that they will never stop. but not all Pals are like this. you can negotiate with the rest. even with Hamas.
There are different tendencies in Hamas. The ideological hard core does indeed refuse any peace or compromise with Israel. They consider it a foreign implantation in Palestine, which in Islamic doctrine is a Muslim "wakf" (religious grant). But many Hamas sympathizers do not treat the organization as an ideological center but rather as an instrument for fighting Israel in pursuit of realistic objectives.
Sheikh Yassin himself announced some months ago in a German paper that the fight would be discontinued after the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Recently, he offered a "hudna" (truce) for 30 years. (Which strongly reminds one of Ariel Sharon's suggestion that Israel would give up the Gaza Strip and retain large parts of the West Bank for an interim phase to last for 20 years.)
Therefore, the murder of the Sheikh did not serve any positive aim. It was an act of folly.
Which is, kill the idiots or hope they learn how to stop murdering people. ONLY then will there be peace. Period.
In the hearts of hundreds of thousands of children in the Palestinian territories and the Arab countries, this murder has raised a storm of rage and thirst for revenge, together with feelings of frustration and humiliation in view of the impotence of the Arab world. This will produce not only thousands of new potential suicide bombers inside the country, but also tens of thousands of volunteers for the radical Islamic organizations throughout the Arab world. (I know, because at the age of 15 I joined the armed underground in similar circumstances.)
There is no stronger weapon for a fighting organization than a martyr. Suffice it to mention Avraham Stern, alias Ya'ir, who was killed by the British police in Tel-Aviv in 1942. His blood gave an impulse to the emergence of the Lehi underground (nicknamed "the Stern gang") which only four years later was playing a major role in the expulsion of the British from Palestine.
My position is that the removal of the settlements is the sin equa non condition of any peace agreement. border adjustments are possible.
I think you need to bother to do some research. There has been some poor offerings and there has been some excellent offerings.
i did my research. it has led me to the excellent Jewish Gush-Shalom site. i trust them as a source. http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/gener ous.html here they show why Barak's offer in 2000 was unacceptable. it was essentially an invitation to a ghetto.
here is what Sharon wants now, an even smaller ghetto: http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/images/map_big_ eng.gif
According to you, they should get their land back and be left alone while they continue to murder jews. You're either ignorant of the facts, and idiot, or a Pal (the last two are pretty much the same thing).
there were no terror attacks while there were peace negotations. what does that tell you? it tells me that the Pals will not murder Jews if they are given the hope for a better future.
I've done a fair amount of reading on this. I USED to feel very badly for those the worthless Pals. If you can't find and/o
Great stuff. Now bother to learn WHY those things are happening.
I have. I researched it. I documented it in the post above for you to check it, too.
As for the land: It's now their friggen land. Spoils of war. Of course it's going to be used. Duh! No surprise there. If anything, it highlights the Palestinian stupidity for passing up the many chances they had to get their land back.
* no, it is not their friggin land. wars of annexation are illegal. resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control is illegal under The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War, 1949 * i showed you how the settler population grew from almost none to 200.000. * the Palestinians were never offered a fair deal. every next deal was worse then the last.
Until Palestinians make an effort to have peace, stop trying to murder and kill ALL FRIGGEN JEWS, Palestinians are not going to get their land back. Opps. I let some facts out. Sorry.
* you did not let any facts out. you only justified illegal actions with the might of force. that is not a fact. it is an opinion.
* yes, here we have this IDIOTIC demand again. "be nice and MAYBE we will give you a little of your land back. but not the good agricultural land, no , this precious land is ours. you can get some of the desert! " * i have a proposal, since there is no Israeli stupidity , as opposed to Palestinian stupidity, maybe Israel makes the first move and removes ALL settlements from the West Bank! if the Palestinians keep on trying to kill ALL JEWS ( which they seem to be very ineffective at trying, as opposed to Israel ) after that, Israel could easily go back.
Not really considering its been on the table for ever, in exchange for peace. But, sadly, the Palestinians would rather kill all jews than get their land back.
* exactly the opposite is true. all the Palestinians want is simply their land back.
When you bother to learn some more facts, you'll soon understand that the land is a poor excuse that ignorant people latch on to.
* if YOU bothered to learn some facts, you would understand how ignorant you really are. but you will never try. * the land is not an excuse, it is a REAL issue. but you prefer to ignore that, because it would be contrary to your personal belief that the Palestinians are inherently evil.
Simple fact is, even if the land was not in contention, the Palestinians would actively be working to mass murder jews.
* that is not a fact, it is your racist accusation. it is just as racist, as claiming that "Jews want to kill the Aryan race". * your approach can never lead to peace, because you assume the EVILNESS of the opposite side as a fact which cannot be changed
Go learn about the last two, three or four peace settlements put on the table by Israel.
Former President Jimmy Carter wrote [Sharon's policies] "have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence."
you do not have to believe me, believe the rightous Jews:
3 years ago it was known as "Barak's Generous offers". Today its name is "The Separation Wall" The plan remains the same: Grabbing maximum land, while driving the Palestinians out. The same people who swallowed whole-heartedly the lie: "Barak offered the Palestinians everything, but they preferred war" are now eating the second serving: "The fence is not political. It is a security measure."
you are the troll here. i document the facts, you only use emotional arguments and vulgar language.
None of your points, some legit, others just hand-waving, negate anything I stated. you claim that Palestinians only want to remove Israel. if they did not, Israel would embrace them with open arms.
i show and document that the opposite is true. Israel wants to remove the Palestinians from their land and expand it's borders. it set up settlements in the W.Bank, which needed military protection, so occupation was justified. i showed you the hard numbers as proof. Israel wants no more ethnic Arabs inside it's borders, because that would mean the end of a Jewish national state.
tell me which points you do not understand.
And be careful when you try to justify strapping bombs on 12 year old boys to go kill innocents... i did not refer to any 12 year olds. that is a straw man argument.
You just might come out looking like an ass. Your style of argument certainly does that for you. you calling me an ass does not make me one. again, vulgarity.
Let me summerize my point: While there is plently of guilt on both sides of the issue (as I stated originally), nothing can legitimize Palestinian tactics of terrorism.
one man's terrorist is the other man's national insurgent or freedom fighter. the Palestinians say that massive civilian casualties on their side and the occupation are reason enough for a mortal response. in fact, Israel is saying the same.
the circle goes like this: the IDF moves into a village, the Palestinians throw stones, the IDF shoots them, they respond with human bombs, the IDF responds with rocket attacks, they respond with bombs again,...
there are different types of terrorism, and there is also state terror. in this case terrorism (human bombings) is a response to state terror (occupation and airplane bombing).
Palestinian leaders are exploiting misguided emotions of the ignorant Palestinian masses. Are the Palestinian people oppressed? I'd say yes.
it has nothing to do with their leaders. people usually choose as leaders those who they think share their beliefs and best represent them. maybe they think that because of Israel's policy they have no normal future:
Sir, your emotional rant has induced me to inform the public on the falsehood of your statements. While I do not want to change YOUR opinions, I can not allow these OPINIONS to be propagated as FACTS. As follows:
And if they weren't trying to remove israel from the face of the Earth,
* * * * * * * Can't embrace my brother if he chooses to kill me and my people to get his political message across...
let us compare who is killing whom: In the Palestinian terrorist attacks, about 920 Israelis were killed (up to 2.1.2004), and 4,400 were wounded (source: Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs). [...] Following statistics of the Palestine Red Crescent Society 2,417 Palestinians were killed and 22,233 were wounded from September 29, 2000, to August 1, 2003, due to the Israeli military operations.
* * * * * * * Better to contain and kill the MF'ers... in the ghetto?
* * * * * * * (In regard to removing Israel from the face of the earth, that's their STATED GOAL my friends. TAUGHT to SCHOOL CHILDREN!)
i can not verify what is beeing taught in schools, because I have never been there. have you? OTOH i can tell for sure what the Israeli public is discussing.
It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on...
you might not understand this, but issues like this provoke revolutions. In Iran in the seventies, the Shah decided that the country should modernize. Therefore he brought in a lot of Western experts. This resulted in two things:
* drunk American soldiers misbehaving in a Muslim country (where alcohol is forbidden) * porn (american movies or advertising billboards with almost nude women)
To the people that meant a total opposite to their cultural values. In meant anti-persianism. That is where the mullahs decided that the Shah is the national ENEMY, because he is leading the country straight into Hell. He was toppled in 1978/79.
(I got this story from "geopolitics of islam" classes.)
by the way, I've heard American soldiers are buying porn DVDs on Baghdad markets...
This article was actually on Worldcom but has relevant thoughts on Microsofts role. It spells out, why it makes sense for the government to punish any company for illegal/anti-competitive behaviour harshly. You tell everybody that crime does not pay off and you do not have to punish everybody that often. Indeed, the US has used that philosophy in foreign relations during the decades of the cold war.
But many critics say the tone for the aggressive business culture of the 1990s was set by the fact that Microsoft was allowed to get away with illegal bullying tactics and yet has still to be handed any punishment.
Ellison: believes Bill Gates calculated benefits would outweigh possible penalties
Larry Ellison, the head of the Oracle software firm, told the BBC that Bill Gates of Microsoft had calculated that the possible penalties from its aggressive illegal behaviour would be dwarfed by the gains from putting its competitor in internet browsers, Netscape, out of business.
"Microsoft now has a monopoly on browsers," Mr Ellison said. "We know it's of huge benefit, huge value to Microsoft - will there be a corresponding offsetting penalty? Who knows? "It's like robbing the bank, getting $50bn or $100bn out of the bank and then they fine you $10,000 for having robbed the bank. "If you have a very small penalty for a very huge robbery, then from Microsoft's standpoint breaking the law turned out to work quite well."
Many people leapt to Microsoft's defence when it was found guilty of illegal practices, arguing that the company's status as a great US success story justified leniency. Indeed, the incoming Bush administration took the pressure off the Microsoft by abandoning the efforts made by President Clinton's officials to break up the Bill Gates empire.
But in making that decision, President Bush may have left himself open to charges that he was indicating a willingness to tolerate an arrogant and bullying business culture that appears to have played a key role in the shocking financial scandals that have emerged in the past year.
disclaimer: i appologise to anyone, except jgardn, who will read this rant. it's a rebuke to the parent post, and by definition "garbage in, a lot of messy cleaning out". if you are halfways informed about politics and history, you probably do not need to read it. flag this as flamebait, if you will. ================ i have many questions for you.
Israel has yet to open a can of you-know-what on the terrorists.
can of worms? i assume you mean using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against terrorist. please explain how. who would you target? terrorist are individuals hiding among the population. would you use WMD (emphasis on MASS) against them? wouldn't that be genocide?
Military estimations said that Israel alone could've taken out Saddam, as well as all neighboring countries who support him.
this thread was about terrorist, but you changed the topic to Saddam. was Saddam a convicted terrorist? or was he a national dictator, previously a CIA asset (assasin) ? which neighboring countries were supporting Saddam? Iran? no. S.Arabia? no. Turkey? no. Jordan? no. kuwait? no. egypt? no. Syria? probably yes, they made business deals with him. but you said COUNTRIES, and one hit does not make a plural.
You don't think Israel has nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver all of them on a moments notice?
what is your sabre-rattling good for? why would Israel want to use it's 200 warheads to turn 100 million Arabs, Turks or Persians into black glass craters? is that a solution to terrorism? is killing some potential 5.000 terrorist (my estimate) worth the 'colateral damage'? maybe you think that all those people do not deserve to live any longer?
The US has been pleading with Israel for restraint from day one. We are still hypocritically encouraging them to be calm, promising them that an American response will be more effective than a Zionist one.
you make something up. restraint from striking against whom? you are very cryptic. I know, that the US has been pleading Israel not to strike back at Iraq in case of SCUD attacks. Saddam would like to ignite a holy war against Jews, which would press other Muslim countries to support him. clearly not a positive outcome. OTOH, if you mean Palestinian terrorist, the US has NEVER promised Israel that it would strike against them. now that would be a stupid strategy.
Ariel Sharon -- the Churchill of Israel -- is preaching restraint, because he knows what is in store for the terrorists at the hands of the Americans.
Ariel Sharon has provoked the current intifada, after that he won the elections as the 'general-iron-fist' candidate. again, the US will not strike at Palestinian terrorist in Set Bank or Gaza. never. this would be symbolic for a judeo-christian crusade in the Holy Land against Muslims. You seem to be unaware of the global implications of such a situation.
This is the same Ariel Sharon that single-handedly defeated Egypt! He knows Israel is in a far stronger position now, and his enemies are much weaker. Egypt was not a terrorist enemy to Israel. it was a nationalistic country. the reasons were also very different. military means are not effective against urban-based terrorist. you can send an army into Afghanistan, but you can not send them inside a city like Kair or Islamabad.
You do not understand the essence of terrorism. You think people flock to terrorists when they see their friends who engage in terrorist acts get mercilessly shredded to black bits of burning flesh by missiles. no, you do not understand terrorism at all. there are different reasons why people become terrorist. there are also different types of terrorism.
1) revenge (like for losing your entire family to an rocket attack)(Palestine, Chechnia) 2) ideology (indoctrination, cultural hostility) (AL-Kaida, Rote Armee Front) 3) assymetric warfare (if your nation has no army, bombs are the only means of
was '1984' an sci-fi novel? or was it political fiction?
Orwell imagined the world 36 years into the future. he put some fictious inventions into the book (sea fortress, pr0n assembling machines, on-wall TV-sets with build-in webcams ? ).
shareholder value is all about short term profits. it is the financial religion of the nineties. future profits are discounted at a quickly diminishing rate. that means that long term projects (over 10 years? ) are deemed unprofitable unless they promise gigantic future cash flow. the risk factor is also important.
in the short term it might be less risky to throw some marketing cash at an old product or visually redesign it (buy our new thingy! now, it's red!) than to spend your precious cash on something unknown.
OTOH, Intel is investing A LOT in R&D. but they get their cash back in, let's say, 5 years and have steady demand. we could take a look at their roadmaps from the past and measure the time from the lab to the market.
there was this documentary on BBC this weekend. they argued that the British Kingdom became an empire because it had to fight with an evil French despotic monarchy.
Britain was an parliamentary monarchy at that time. The purpose of the parliament is to restraint the ruler from fighting unjust wars for personal grandeur and glory. This always means higher taxes and merchants just hate that idea.
The colonies in America have been surrounded by french forts on the Missisippi and in Quebec. This meant that they could possibly fall under the rule of France. The 7-years war was fought to prevent that danger. So, at that time Britain was only protecting it's people from an encirclement by a tyrannic, undemocratic regime. the costs at that time were twice their yearly income. they had to tax the protected somehow. 30 years later the settlers did not want to pay for the protection any more.
In India the French caused the problems again. There was already an monarchy in India, the Moguls (sp?). the British had only a trade settlement in India, no troops. they were buying Indian high-tech carpets in exchange for british silver.The French toppled the legitimate ruler and put an puppet in his place. this would not be as bad if the new monarch hadn't ruled all trade with the brits illegal. so now, they had to bring in troops topple the french puppet and install somebody new. after that someone had to administer the terrain, colect taxes and here you go, you have got an occupation and bureaucracy (CPA?).
Only later had the French people started their own revolution because they didn't want to pay the taxes for the military adventures of their king.
It's that Microsoft reacts to marketing pressure to make design decisions [...] forced [...] to engage in a patch-and-kludge upgrade process until the code becomes so bloated, slow and unreliable that wholesale replacement is again called for.
Here is why it makes sense. The OS product is only successful if it has user software. Breaking backward compatibility costs serious market share.
homo sapiens was never under such a bombardment of informations like today. 30.000 years ago information was rare. if we do not stop the information flood we will become autistic, canceling out all incoming messages, even those relevant.
i forsee that one day people will use glasses which will whiten out all street billboards. it is possible, it would be the opposite of those glasses which are supposed to put messages on rectangular surfaces.
actually it will be the same glasses. they will cancel out the ads and put a nice browser window on the freed space.
(there was a funny sci-fi flick where a guy found glasses, which showed who was an alien and who was a real person. they also showed, what the real message on the billboards was. i can't rememeber the name...)
that is what TRIPS - Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights is for. it obliges the signing countries to respect patents and copyrights. Software is not the only thing that the US does export. entertainment (Hollywood) is also a major exporter. that is why legal standards in other countries (movie piracy in China) have an impact on US trade saldo.
on the other hand TRIPS causes bio-piracy. a US company can patent genes of a plant, let's say, from Guatemala. if Guatemala signs the TRIPS agreement, it's people will have to pay royalty for that gene. poor people can not afford to apply for patents.
someone else can point out the near endless series of side benefits that have been brought to humanity because of humanity's propensity towards killing eachother.
being only side effects of an enormous waste of resources and human life, they are not worth it. also, weapons are sometimes the side effect to peaceful inventions. the steam machine was not invented as a war tool, but for pumping out water in coal mines. eventually, this technology led to battleships.
For instance, the computers that you and I are both sitting in front are the progeny of now 'ancient' military computer systems built during WWII.
IIRC, they were first used to calculate range/tilt tables for artillery. essentially large calculators. but before that machines were used in data counting in a census. you do not need a full scale war to do some inventing.
We may never have had RADAR systems developed if not for war. Same goes with rocket and jet engine technology...
But the "Radio" technology has been invented by the Marconi in the early XX century. that pre-requisite for the radar was already there.
the fact is that thousands of airplanes were build in WW2. if the same amount of planes for civilian use were build, somebody would have inevitabily invented the radio for such a big market.
Sure, war sucks. Sure, people die from armed conflict. However, without war, we would most assuredly not have the technology that we have today as artists, philosophers and pacifists aren't as prone to push forward the march of technology as much as those that have been put into desperate situations that need a radical new way of thinking to achieve a goal do.
that is a mistaken argument. you are comparing people in need to invent something new because their life is on the line with a small group of people in totally different situation and preoccupation, to prove that nobody but scientists on the payroll of the military would push science and technology forward. what about commercial R&D labs? profit is a powerful incentive.
The point may be that there are some areas which are not profitable from a risk/profit point of view. inventing radar is really cheap. testing rockets is not. you get many of them blown away, before the technology is mature. only an entity like the government has pockets deep enough to bear the initial losses. in the end this particular project was profitable, because there was a market for thousands of ICBMs (i know, war).
today corporations are as big as some governments, they can finance big projects, if it makes sense from the financial point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
some random points:
Just save yourself a lot of trouble and ignore him.
it is hard to decide when to discuss and when to ignore. that is something I have not found an answer to, yet. I do not know whether his points are legit, what his real life experience is.
some general points, in other discussions:
When is a comment a troll?
Should I try to change the mind of Zealots? Isn't it futile?
Should I protect other readers from a Zealot's false information ?
i did not now that in a discussion it is me who has to provide facts which prove and support my counter-parts position. a bunch of stereotypes and taken-for-granted suppositions are not facts, either.
r aq.html
anyway, for a lighter read (how this whole thread makes me feel):
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_i
MC simulations typically have value only when used in large runs. Without a reasonable number of simulations, you usually end up with very poor statistics for your outcome. A single shoot of the roulet wheel tells you nothing. Ten million shots can come close to simulating an acutal event.
Do you know why you decided to do ten million simulations? Why not one million or just one thousand? When is the sample size large enough? Depends on the event.
For certain distributions the minimum sample size can be easily calculated based on the parameters of a test sample. The final sample size varies with the certainty coefficient and a chosen maximal estimation error. Excel has 64K rows, if the minimum sample size is smaller, it will do just fine. My last simulation needed an n.min == 1443 , not ten million. ( testing AVG +/-5%, 95% certainty )
(OTOH in an other simulation n.min == 69K)
I second that demand.
there is no need to patronize around. Excel MC beats deterministic business forcasts based on i-wish-so values, anytime. (that was the problem in the article.) we are not trying to do rocket science here.
From the article:
The first distortion is the use of point values and simple arithmetic instead of probability distributions and statistical measures. So far as I know, there's no off-the-shelf spreadsheet product--certainly none in common use--that provides for input of numbers as uncertain quantities, even though almost all of our decisions rest on forecasts or on speculations.
I am a student of this university : http://www.sgh.waw.pl/
Currently I am having a course in the use of Excel for prediction purposes. We do a lot of different case studies. We use Monte Carlo simulations, statistical tests, Markov chains and so on. We always discuss risk (variance, value-at-risk and so on). Excel is our basic tool and it is fine. We use different tools for specific purposes: Best-Fit for distribution fitting.
It is not a flaw of the tool, it is a flaw of the user. As someone said, give a monkey a PC instead of a type writer and you will get digital bullshit. I can only demand that people without proper education are not allowed to deliver multi-million business forcasts.
(complete the punch line)
...
Space. The final frontier
Alright, a decent question! You're presumption of what would happen is flawed, however. I'm not saying they would "embrace them with open arms" (remember?), but the violence coming from Israel would cease. Ghettos? The Palestinians have demonstrated that the closer they allow them to be, the more Israelis DIE! That's a pretty strong motovation to put as much distance as they can between them and those that would kill them! If they stop the violence, Israel would stop the violence. Then you could figure out how to proceed. The Palestians don't want to end the violence. They want to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet. That position will lead to their destruction and perhaps the destruction of many more peoples. Sad but true.
;) Thanks, it's been fun.
the following may seem to be naive, but i have heard the following explanation. in arab countries in is common to make a fuzz about an issue and then settle for the modest solution. like haggling in the bazar. the merchants make horrenduously high demands, but settles for the buyers proposition. the "destroy Israel" thing may be a posture. it is a ralling call, not a long term goal.
in fact, the Pals have been very ineffective at causing REAL damage (unlike al-Kaida, which really wants to maximize damage). the PLO is not a religious/ideological organization. it is a national organization. bin Laden does not care how many Saudis die because of his actions. he is an outlaw, and has no homeland, no nationals to care about. the Pals have families in place, which would be open to an indiscriminate blowback, if they were to try a really massive attack on Tel Aviv. (chemical/biological/nuclear)
As for how to enjoy peace in the Middle east (which I believe is the essence of your question,) I don't know. The Palestians must give up violence. The Israelis must also commit to peace as well. As for what I believe will happen, I believe the Palestinian people will be largely destroyed. And that is a shameful crime. A crime with blood on many hands, Palestinian and Israeli alike...
I AGREE that this is the most possible outcome. i have no illusions on the difference of power.
Perhaps a multinational force to keep the peace? Then what? Arafat doesn't want to share.
Nope, I don't have the answer either. Better than I have tried and failed.
agreed. it is difficult to negotiate with a party that can not control it's own militants. Arafat can not control Hamas. OTOH, every attack on Hamas takes more authority away from Arafat. To hold it, he has to take a more radical posture. he can not arrest Hamas (which are his competitors for people's minds), because he would be labelled national traitor / colaborator.
And I like how you said we like sarcasm, implying I am alone in my other positions.
this is a misunderstanding. i did not imply that. actuall it was replying sarcasm on my part.
Very good underhanded dishonest posturing! If you can't attack your opponent's argument, attack your opponent! (Yes, I did it too, but at least I labled it as a joke...)
the trees/Volvo thing was a joke, not a personal attack.
OK, that's all you'll get from me on this thread. I really didn't want to get into it to begin with. I really didn't want to come off as a political provocateur. I know this issue is a hot button... But you put up so much effort!
i think we managed to carve out some common ground.
Israel wants to distance themselves (literally) from the killers of Palestine. To argue by introducing a flawed presumption is dishonest. (You did that with the "open arms" reference, too. I never said that. There's too much hatred to get over first.)
"open arms" is a shorter way to say the following: "they would be welcome to participate in the economic, social, and political makeup of the society at large..." you really said that here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=101855&cid=868 6723
I agree that there is hatred. on both sides.
You attempted to justify Palestinian violence. That is an example of Palestinian violence. True, it's not the usual flavor of Palestinian violence. Most of their bombers tend to be of legal age. But it is a legitimate incident to bring up because it is part and parcel consistent with the MO of Palestinian terror. Remove the age reference, and it's pretty much identical to hundreds of other bombings. I will give you one point. The child wasn't 12. He was 14.
thank you for the link. fact accepted. i do not try to justify that particular bombing. using children is always inexcusable, because they are not able to make a mature choice.
Are you suggesting Palestinians vote for their leaders? Yes, technically they do, but I would suggest PNA elections aren't nearly as democratic as US or Western European democracies. Was Arafat opposed in the election? (I truly don't know.) Oh yes, Arafat... A known killer . I would also suggest that any constituency that would elect Arafat is morally bankrupt for some reason. Or perhaps the elections were kind of like the iraqis electing Saddam year after year? I do not know enough about them to suggest the PNA elections are a farce, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. The PNA was the PLO, for crying out loud...
You side-stepped the question. As for the incidents you bring up, they are unfortunate, but they are all one-offs. They are not examples of standard MO's. I can find many instances of rape and murder in any town in the US, but that is not the normal experience for most US citizens. Your examples don't mean anything in the big picture (unlike my bomber reference, except, as I mentioned, the age of the bomber).
I see two sides indiscriminately trying to kill each other. That is what the fatality numbers show.
But only one side is taking from the other the means of living (like uprooting olive trees).
I can agree with you that there are Palestinians who are so obsessed with with killing, that they
will never stop. but not all Pals are like this. you can negotiate with the rest. even with Hamas.
Which is, kill the idiots or hope they learn how to stop murdering people. ONLY then will there be peace. Period.
My position is that the removal of the settlements is the sin equa non condition of any peace agreement. border adjustments are possible.
/map_big_ eng.gif
I think you need to bother to do some research. There has been some poor offerings and there has been some excellent offerings.
i did my research. it has led me to the excellent Jewish Gush-Shalom site. i trust them as a source.
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/gener ous.html
here they show why Barak's offer in 2000 was unacceptable. it was essentially an invitation to a ghetto.
here is what Sharon wants now, an even smaller ghetto:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/images
According to you, they should get their land back and be left alone while they continue to murder jews. You're either ignorant of the facts, and idiot, or a Pal (the last two are pretty much the same thing).
there were no terror attacks while there were peace negotations. what does that tell you? it tells me that the Pals will not murder Jews if they are given the hope for a better future.
I've done a fair amount of reading on this. I USED to feel very badly for those the worthless Pals. If you can't find and/o
you gave no facts to support your position.
you ignored the settlements growth and the resulting crowding out of PAlestinians.
you ignored the impact of the occupation on fueling terrorism. the occupation, curfews and shootings are the main direct cause of terrorism.
I have. I researched it. I documented it in the post above for you to check it, too.
As for the land: It's now their friggen land. Spoils of war. Of course it's going to be used. Duh! No surprise there. If anything, it highlights the Palestinian stupidity for passing up the many chances they had to get their land back.
* no, it is not their friggin land. wars of annexation are illegal. resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control is illegal under The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War, 1949
* i showed you how the settler population grew from almost none to 200.000.
* the Palestinians were never offered a fair deal. every next deal was worse then the last.
Until Palestinians make an effort to have peace, stop trying to murder and kill ALL FRIGGEN JEWS, Palestinians are not going to get their land back. Opps. I let some facts out. Sorry.
* you did not let any facts out. you only justified illegal actions with the might of force. that is not a fact. it is an opinion.
* yes, here we have this IDIOTIC demand again. "be nice and MAYBE we will give you a little of your land back. but not the good agricultural land, no , this precious land is ours. you can get some of the desert! "
* i have a proposal, since there is no Israeli stupidity , as opposed to Palestinian stupidity, maybe Israel makes the first move and removes ALL settlements from the West Bank! if the Palestinians keep on trying to kill ALL JEWS ( which they seem to be very ineffective at trying, as opposed to Israel ) after that, Israel could easily go back.
Not really considering its been on the table for ever, in exchange for peace. But, sadly, the Palestinians would rather kill all jews than get their land back.
* exactly the opposite is true. all the Palestinians want is simply their land back.
When you bother to learn some more facts, you'll soon understand that the land is a poor excuse that ignorant people latch on to.
* if YOU bothered to learn some facts, you would understand how ignorant you really are. but you will never try.
* the land is not an excuse, it is a REAL issue. but you prefer to ignore that, because it would be contrary to your personal belief that the Palestinians are inherently evil.
Simple fact is, even if the land was not in contention, the Palestinians would actively be working to mass murder jews.
* that is not a fact, it is your racist accusation. it is just as racist, as claiming that "Jews want to kill the Aryan race".
* your approach can never lead to peace, because you assume the EVILNESS of the opposite side as a fact which cannot be changed
Go learn about the last two, three or four peace settlements put on the table by Israel.
Former President Jimmy Carter wrote [Sharon's policies] "have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence."
you do not have to believe me, believe the rightous Jews:
look at the maps of those generous offers
Each time, btw, the Palestinian response was, no, was can't do that until all jews in Israel are dead. What pigs.
* do you actually r
None of your points, some legit, others just hand-waving, negate anything I stated.
you claim that Palestinians only want to remove Israel. if they did not, Israel would embrace them with open arms.
i show and document that the opposite is true. Israel wants to remove the Palestinians from their land and expand it's borders. it set up settlements in the W.Bank, which needed military protection, so occupation was justified. i showed you the hard numbers as proof. Israel wants no more ethnic Arabs inside it's borders, because that would mean the end of a Jewish national state.
tell me which points you do not understand.
And be careful when you try to justify strapping bombs on 12 year old boys to go kill innocents...
i did not refer to any 12 year olds. that is a straw man argument.
You just might come out looking like an ass. Your style of argument certainly does that for you.
you calling me an ass does not make me one. again, vulgarity.
Let me summerize my point: While there is plently of guilt on both sides of the issue (as I stated originally), nothing can legitimize Palestinian tactics of terrorism.
one man's terrorist is the other man's national insurgent or freedom fighter. the Palestinians say that massive civilian casualties on their side and the occupation are reason enough for a mortal response. in fact, Israel is saying the same.
the circle goes like this: the IDF moves into a village, the Palestinians throw stones, the IDF shoots them, they respond with human bombs, the IDF responds with rocket attacks, they respond with bombs again,
there are different types of terrorism, and there is also state terror. in this case terrorism (human bombings) is a response to state terror (occupation and airplane bombing).
Palestinian leaders are exploiting misguided emotions of the ignorant Palestinian masses. Are the Palestinian people oppressed? I'd say yes.
it has nothing to do with their leaders. people usually choose as leaders those who they think share their beliefs and best represent them. maybe they think that because of Israel's policy they have no normal future:
But can you really justify their actions?
but can you justify the following:
Sir, your emotional rant has induced me to inform the public on the falsehood of your statements. While I do not want to change YOUR opinions, I can not allow these OPINIONS to be propagated as FACTS. As follows:
And if they weren't trying to remove israel from the face of the Earth,
If israeli settlers weren't trying to remove palestinians from THEIR land:
Total settler population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip:
1972: 1,500
1983: 29,090
1992: 109,784
2001: 213,672
Total settler population in East Jerusalem:
1972: 6,900
1992: 141,000
2000: 170,400
which is well documented by JEWISH human rights organizations:
The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
settlers, whom even JEWS want to pull out:
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom - Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace - for the sake of Israel's security, bring the settlers home
settlers, who sometimes aren't even Semites:
(When a delegation of rabbis travelled to Lima to convert a group of South American Indians to Judaism, they added just one condition: come and live with us in Israel. As soon as these new Jews arrived in the country, they were bussed straight to settlements in the disputed territories. )
* * * * * * *
they would be welcome to participate in the economic, social, and political makeup of the society at large...
such a change of policy is highly questionable. the opposite is taking place right now:
While the settlers benefit from an unlimited quantity of running water - including filling swimming pools and watering lawns, the Palestinian towns and villages suffer a severe shortage of running water, even for drinking and bathing.
Ever heard of Nuremberg Laws? Israeli Parliament votes to block Palestinians who marry Israelis from becoming Israeli citizens or residents,[...] supporters of bill call it necessary bulwark against infiltration by terrorists, as well as way to preserve Israel's Jewish majority; opponents call it racist measure
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions - Israel Destroys Palestinian Infrastructure
* * * * * * *
Can't embrace my brother if he chooses to kill me and my people to get his political message across...
let us compare who is killing whom:
In the Palestinian terrorist attacks, about 920 Israelis were killed (up to 2.1.2004), and 4,400 were wounded (source: Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs). [...]
Following statistics of the Palestine Red Crescent Society 2,417 Palestinians were killed and 22,233 were wounded from September 29, 2000, to August 1, 2003, due to the Israeli military operations.
* * * * * * *
Better to contain and kill the MF'ers...
in the ghetto?
* * * * * * *
(In regard to removing Israel from the face of the earth, that's their STATED GOAL my friends. TAUGHT to SCHOOL CHILDREN!)
i can not verify what is beeing taught in schools, because I have never been there. have you? OTOH i can tell for sure what the Israeli public is discussing.
well, Israel is considering removing of all Palestinians into Jordan. In other countries this is called ETHNIC CLEANSING.
( King Abdullah has rejected the idea of permanently settling Palestinians outside their
It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on ...
...
you might not understand this, but issues like this provoke revolutions.
In Iran in the seventies, the Shah decided that the country should modernize. Therefore he brought in a lot of Western experts. This resulted in two things:
* drunk American soldiers misbehaving in a Muslim country (where alcohol is forbidden)
* porn (american movies or advertising billboards with almost nude women)
To the people that meant a total opposite to their cultural values. In meant anti-persianism. That is where the mullahs decided that the Shah is the national ENEMY, because he is leading the country straight into Hell. He was toppled in 1978/79.
(I got this story from "geopolitics of islam" classes.)
by the way, I've heard American soldiers are buying porn DVDs on Baghdad markets
disclaimer: i appologise to anyone, except jgardn, who will read this rant. it's a rebuke to the parent post, and by definition "garbage in, a lot of messy cleaning out". if you are halfways informed about politics and history, you probably do not need to read it. flag this as flamebait, if you will.
================
i have many questions for you.
Israel has yet to open a can of you-know-what on the terrorists.
can of worms? i assume you mean using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against terrorist. please explain how. who would you target? terrorist are individuals hiding among the population. would you use WMD (emphasis on MASS) against them? wouldn't that be genocide?
Military estimations said that Israel alone could've taken out Saddam, as well as all neighboring countries who support him.
this thread was about terrorist, but you changed the topic to Saddam. was Saddam a convicted terrorist? or was he a national dictator, previously a CIA asset (assasin) ? which neighboring countries were supporting Saddam? Iran? no. S.Arabia? no. Turkey? no. Jordan? no. kuwait? no. egypt? no. Syria? probably yes, they made business deals with him. but you said COUNTRIES, and one hit does not make a plural.
You don't think Israel has nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver all of them on a moments notice?
what is your sabre-rattling good for? why would Israel want to use it's 200 warheads to turn 100 million Arabs, Turks or Persians into black glass craters? is that a solution to terrorism? is killing some potential 5.000 terrorist (my estimate) worth the 'colateral damage'? maybe you think that all those people do not deserve to live any longer?
The US has been pleading with Israel for restraint from day one. We are still hypocritically encouraging them to be calm, promising them that an American response will be more effective than a Zionist one.
you make something up. restraint from striking against whom? you are very cryptic. I know, that the US has been pleading Israel not to strike back at Iraq in case of SCUD attacks. Saddam would like to ignite a holy war against Jews, which would press other Muslim countries to support him. clearly not a positive outcome. OTOH, if you mean Palestinian terrorist, the US has NEVER promised Israel that it would strike against them. now that would be a stupid strategy.
Ariel Sharon -- the Churchill of Israel -- is preaching restraint, because he knows what is in store for the terrorists at the hands of the Americans.
Ariel Sharon has provoked the current intifada, after that he won the elections as the 'general-iron-fist' candidate. again, the US will not strike at Palestinian terrorist in Set Bank or Gaza. never. this would be symbolic for a judeo-christian crusade in the Holy Land against Muslims. You seem to be unaware of the global implications of such a situation.
This is the same Ariel Sharon that single-handedly defeated Egypt! He knows Israel is in a far stronger position now, and his enemies are much weaker.
Egypt was not a terrorist enemy to Israel. it was a nationalistic country. the reasons were also very different. military means are not effective against urban-based terrorist. you can send an army into Afghanistan, but you can not send them inside a city like Kair or Islamabad.
You do not understand the essence of terrorism. You think people flock to terrorists when they see their friends who engage in terrorist acts get mercilessly shredded to black bits of burning flesh by missiles.
no, you do not understand terrorism at all. there are different reasons why people become terrorist. there are also different types of terrorism.
1) revenge (like for losing your entire family to an rocket attack)(Palestine, Chechnia)
2) ideology (indoctrination, cultural hostility) (AL-Kaida, Rote Armee Front)
3) assymetric warfare (if your nation has no army, bombs are the only means of
it's easier to steal 100 kilogram of dynamite from a mining warehouse like they just did in Spain.
was '1984' an sci-fi novel?
or was it political fiction?
Orwell imagined the world 36 years into the future. he put some fictious inventions into the book (sea fortress, pr0n assembling machines, on-wall TV-sets with build-in webcams ? ).
is 'Big Brother' an sci-fi term?
shareholder value is all about short term profits. it is the financial religion of the nineties. future profits are discounted at a quickly diminishing rate. that means that long term projects (over 10 years? ) are deemed unprofitable unless they promise gigantic future cash flow. the risk factor is also important.
in the short term it might be less risky to throw some marketing cash at an old product or visually redesign it (buy our new thingy! now, it's red!) than to spend your precious cash on something unknown.
OTOH, Intel is investing A LOT in R&D. but they get their cash back in, let's say, 5 years and have steady demand. we could take a look at their roadmaps from the past and measure the time from the lab to the market.
there was this documentary on BBC this weekend. they argued that the British Kingdom became an empire because it had to fight with an evil French despotic monarchy.
Britain was an parliamentary monarchy at that time. The purpose of the parliament is to restraint the ruler from fighting unjust wars for personal grandeur and glory. This always means higher taxes and merchants just hate that idea.
The colonies in America have been surrounded by french forts on the Missisippi and in Quebec. This meant that they could possibly fall under the rule of France. The 7-years war was fought to prevent that danger. So, at that time Britain was only protecting it's people from an encirclement by a tyrannic, undemocratic regime. the costs at that time were twice their yearly income. they had to tax the protected somehow. 30 years later the settlers did not want to pay for the protection any more.
In India the French caused the problems again. There was already an monarchy in India, the Moguls (sp?). the British had only a trade settlement in India, no troops. they were buying Indian high-tech carpets in exchange for british silver.The French toppled the legitimate ruler and put an puppet in his place. this would not be as bad if the new monarch hadn't ruled all trade with the brits illegal. so now, they had to bring in troops topple the french puppet and install somebody new. after that someone had to administer the terrain, colect taxes and here you go, you have got an occupation and bureaucracy (CPA?).
Only later had the French people started their own revolution because they didn't want to pay the taxes for the military adventures of their king.
Here is why it makes sense. The OS product is only successful if it has user software. Breaking backward compatibility costs serious market share.
Microsoft obsessed about this, spending a big chunk of change testing every old program they could find with Windows 95. Jon Ross, who wrote the original version of SimCity for Windows 3.x, told me that he accidentally left a bug in SimCity where he read memory that he had just freed. Yep. It worked fine on Windows 3.x, because the memory never went anywhere. Here's the amazing part: On beta versions of Windows 95, SimCity wasn't working in testing. Microsoft tracked down the bug and added specific code to Windows 95 that looks for SimCity. If it finds SimCity running, it runs the memory allocator in a special mode that doesn't free memory right away. That's the kind of obsession with backward compatibility that made people willing to upgrade to Windows 95.
As we know from Kuro5hin's code windows code review:
It's noticeable that a lot of the "hacks" refer to individual applications. In some cases they are non-Microsoft. [...] Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility.
To conclude, M$ writes good code but has to use dirty hacks for backward compatibility. It's not their fault, they have customers to care for.
homo sapiens was never under such a bombardment of informations like today. 30.000 years ago information was rare. if we do not stop the information flood we will become autistic, canceling out all incoming messages, even those relevant.
i forsee that one day people will use glasses which will whiten out all street billboards. it is possible, it would be the opposite of those glasses which are supposed to put messages on rectangular surfaces.
actually it will be the same glasses. they will cancel out the ads and put a nice browser window on the freed space.
(there was a funny sci-fi flick where a guy found glasses, which showed who was an alien and who was a real person. they also showed, what the real message on the billboards was. i can't rememeber the name...)
that is what TRIPS - Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights is for. it obliges the signing countries to respect patents and copyrights. Software is not the only thing that the US does export. entertainment (Hollywood) is also a major exporter. that is why legal standards in other countries (movie piracy in China) have an impact on US trade saldo.
on the other hand TRIPS causes bio-piracy. a US company can patent genes of a plant, let's say, from Guatemala. if Guatemala signs the TRIPS agreement, it's people will have to pay royalty for that gene. poor people can not afford to apply for patents.
someone else can point out the near endless series of side benefits that have been brought to humanity because of humanity's propensity towards killing eachother.
being only side effects of an enormous waste of resources and human life, they are not worth it. also, weapons are sometimes the side effect to peaceful inventions. the steam machine was not invented as a war tool, but for pumping out water in coal mines. eventually, this technology led to battleships.
For instance, the computers that you and I are both sitting in front are the progeny of now 'ancient' military computer systems built during WWII.
IIRC, they were first used to calculate range/tilt tables for artillery. essentially large calculators. but before that machines were used in data counting in a census. you do not need a full scale war to do some inventing.
We may never have had RADAR systems developed if not for war. Same goes with rocket and jet engine technology...
But the "Radio" technology has been invented by the Marconi in the early XX century. that pre-requisite for the radar was already there.
the fact is that thousands of airplanes were build in WW2. if the same amount of planes for civilian use were build, somebody would have inevitabily invented the radio for such a big market.
Sure, war sucks. Sure, people die from armed conflict. However, without war, we would most assuredly not have the technology that we have today as artists, philosophers and pacifists aren't as prone to push forward the march of technology as much as those that have been put into desperate situations that need a radical new way of thinking to achieve a goal do.
that is a mistaken argument. you are comparing people in need to invent something new because their life is on the line with a small group of people in totally different situation and preoccupation, to prove that nobody but scientists on the payroll of the military would push science and technology forward. what about commercial R&D labs? profit is a powerful incentive.
The point may be that there are some areas which are not profitable from a risk/profit point of view. inventing radar is really cheap. testing rockets is not. you get many of them blown away, before the technology is mature. only an entity like the government has pockets deep enough to bear the initial losses. in the end this particular project was profitable, because there was a market for thousands of ICBMs (i know, war).
today corporations are as big as some governments, they can finance big projects, if it makes sense from the financial point of view.
You are the troll here!
now i will have to meta-moderate for the next couple of hours to find and bring this parent-post back to the surface.
... MADE IN SOVIET RUSSIA !
( i'm serious, they really remind me of CCCP tv flicks ).