Obviously you show your arrogance. Chavez was elected, therefore he is a legitimate leader. The fact that he may be left-leaning, a socialist or even a communist has nothing to do with it. In a democray, if people vote for you you are elected. That's how it works, in case you didn't know. There were no signs during the last election that the vote was rigged and in fact even his political opponents have not tried to play that card. Your banter reminds me of cold-war era fearmongering by strident right-winger that we had to napalm thousands of civilians in order to "fight communism".
I know quite a lot more about South American politics that you'd give me credit for: no left-wing government has ever seized power by vote-rigging and intimidation - that has always been the perogative of militaristic juntas. AFAIK, the only non-elected left-wing government in Latin America is Cuba. But even then, if you actually took the time to look at how their political system worked, you'd see that they do elect representatives, who do exert influence on how the country is run. While I would prefer if Castro called in elections (he would probably be elected anyway), Cuba is still more of a democratic country than, says, Colombia.
For your information, it wasn't the army who conducted the coup, it was a coalition of generals, industrials, union leaders and church leaders - in other words, all of those who really profit when democracy remains just an empty shell. Most of the lower officers and foot soldiers supported Chavez, hence his return to power. For someone calling me ignorant, you sure need to read up on this a little!
As for indymedia, it is no more biased than The Economist or The New York Times...it's just that its bias doesn't agree with your own. It really doesn't matter, however, since most of the information I've gotten on this matter has come from "mainstream" source (such as the NYT, the Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, the Irish Times, the International Herald Tribune). So don't try to pigeonhole me with your condescending attitude - I'm confident my media sources cover a wider range than yours...
For the 900lb. gorilla, only one thing matters: its own interests. Similarly, democracy is only important for the U.S. government if it suits America's national interest. This has been the case since at least 1953, with the CIA -backed coup against Iran and has been going on ever since. I know it, you know it, so let's drop the bullshit.
For the record, the suppresion of democratic protest at Tiananmen Square was a tragedy. On that we agree. But to draw a parralel with what happened in Venezuela is both ludicrous and misleading. Note, however, that the anti-democratic repression in China did not prevent it from keeping Most Favored Nation status (for trade purposes) with the U.S., allegedly the champion of democracy...
Yeah, like we should believe you. You're nothing more than part of the propaganda machine, spewing lies so that you can profit from good ole-fashioned corruption once the "old gang" is back in power. If you had any balls you wouldn't post as an Anonymous Coward but would try to support your fabrications with some evidence. Of course, there is no such evidence so you just invent incredibly moronic statements like:
He also has "Círculos Bolivarianos", which are groups of armed men in the poorest neighbourhoods, there to produce terror and instigate civil unrest (and pro-Chavez feelings amongst the poorest elements of society)
That doesn't make any sense: you can't generate support for you by terrorizing people! You must really think we are a bunch of idiots to say things like that! The fact is, the great majority of the people stand behind Chavez because he has tried (with moderate success) to address the wide gap between the rich and the poor in Venezuela and tried to dismantle the network of corruption (of which you are obviously a part of) that poisoned the country.
If you really don't like Chavez, vote him out, don't break the law with a coup. This whole story has a real embarassment for the U.S., and the whole world has noticed. Don't expect much more help from them in the months to come...
Re:World War III
on
On Hacktivism
·
· Score: 4, Informative
A good example of this is the recent attempted coup in Venezuela: North American media have all relayed the information reported in Venezuelan media that government troops fired on anti-Chavez protesters. This, you'll remember, is what prompted his (ultimately unsuccessful) removal from power by the coup leaders -- which subsequently led the Bush administration to trample the ideals of democracy by refusing to denounce the coup (they didn't even call it like that at the time)! While the White House is pathetically trying to backpeddle out of this mess, it is still saying that Chavez will have to respect democracy (how Orwellian!) and not repress political dissent. However, nobody stopped to think if what was shown by the Venezuelan media was the whole truth, even though they are known to be overtly and aggressively anti-Chavez. As it happens, testimony from people who were there, including an Irish filmmaker, is starting to reveal that government troops were not the only ones to shoot, and perhaps not even the first one. Another telling detail: most of those killed by snipers on that day were Chavistas (pro-Chavez) who had come to confront the anti-Chavez demonstration...
Yes, I'm happy to "relativize away" quotes that send a if-you-disagree-with-me-you-deserve-to-be-shot message
Well, you misinterpreted both my post and the original quotes, if I may say so. The meaning of the quote is that when people start putting more value in safety than in liberty, things can (and often do) go down pretty bad. Look at it this way: totalitarian regimes are usually pretty safe - as long as you tow the party line. Crime was almost nonexistent in the Cold War-era U.S.S.R. But dissent was severely punished. So people were safe, but not free.
I only said that I don't agree that someone deserves to have their safety taken away or to be stripped of all of their liberties if they were to vote differently at the polls than you.
Now where the hell did you get that from? You're blatantly distorting my words - I am a true democrat, and would never advocate such a thing. I'm insulted that you would give me such intentions and appreciate it if you could apologize.
On the other hand, I understand where you may have misunderstood the original quote. I think it has to do with the word "deserve". You automatically conclude that, when Franklin or Jefferson say that those who would sacrifice freedom for security do not deserve neither, that they are advocating that such freedom and security be removed from them: they are simply making a moral observation. Like someone who receives a gift but doesn't deserve it: you can state that fact without advocating taking the gift away. I'll give you another (partisan) example: I can say that Bush didn't deserve to win the last election, since he got a lesser portion of the national vote than Gore. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating his overthrow (though I'm sure President Chavez of Venezuela would say that he was responsible for his own demise...;-) Or, I could say that "A Beautiful Mind" didn't deserve to win the Oscar for Best Picture - but I wouldn't support an overturn of the decision!
There is a subtle distinction here, I hope you can understand it.
People use this quote by Franklin when they are trying to sound intellectual[...]Is that what you consider post-modern?
I wasn't trying to sound like an intellectual (I've got my own website to do that!), I just put it there because I like it. I think it's a really good quote. I did think it through, and I still think it's a great quote. I personally think that you have simply misunderstood its meaning. The post-modern thing is a reference to many people I know who just take the meaning out of everything by excessively relativizing it (it usually boils down to "but, what is life?" or worse "but, what is art?"). That's trying to sound intellectual.
Don't worry, I'm not into flame wars. But I am outraged at the fact that the american media constantly describes Palestinian attacks as "aggression" while Israeli attacks are called "retaliation". I'm outraged that these attacks, which destroy innocent lives on both sides, are called "terrorism" when perpetrated by civilians and "collateral damage" when done by soldiers. I'm outraged that the two sides are judged as equal partners in the conflict when one has the most powerful army in the region (the fourth largest in the world) and the other has no other weapons than a few old assault rifles and makeshift bombs. I'm outraged that Sharon, responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Chatila, is now seen as "a man of peace" by Bush when he is only interested in furthering the war and increasing illegal settlements in the occupied territory. I'm outraged that the majority of people in Israel and America don't understand that you can't eliminate terrorism by humiliating and oppressing an entire population, and that in fact it has the opposing effect of radicalizing moderates - even William F. Buckley understands this! If your father had been killed by the people that occupy your land, if they beat up your younger brother in front of you, if they harassed you, prevented you from going to work, flattened your house, arrested you without a warrant and stripped you naked in the middle of the road, wouldn't you want some kind of retribution? I'm outraged at the lies of the Israeli military, who say that the monks in Bethleem are held hostages by the besieged palestinians that took refuge in the Church of the Nativity, when those very monks have said that they are staying behind of their own free will to avoid a bloodshed. I'm outraged at the policy of targeted killings adopted by the Israeli government, which is an insult to the rule of law because (among others) of the high risk of executing an innocent - Tim McVeigh got a trial, didn't he?
Israelis have the right to live in peace, but not to oppress another people to achieve this. Sharon's military initiative will not bring peace for the simple reason that two wrongs don't make a right. The whole world understands this, save for Israel and the U.S. (where the media nearly all have a pro-Israel bias). Sharon is now thumbing his nose at George Bush, who is losing is war-earned prestige by the minute - what has all this brought back to the U.S., save for the animosity of the arab world and the embarassment of allies? Sharon does not respect the U.S., he only appreciates the military help - twice last week, he defended the behavior of his army by implying that the U.S. army in Afghanistan killed civilians indiscriminately...are those the words of a staunch ally?
The record industry doesn't have that many options. The best one seems to me to start giving away the virtual (i.e. the actual songs) and sell the material (i.e. nice hard to break cases, quality booklets or even books). The special edition Kid A from Radiohead is a good example of a CD you want to buy (if you like Radiohead, that is).
This, combined to other non-downloadable merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc.) and -- of course -- live performances, should enable musicians to keep making a living while preventing customer alienation (which you'd imagine would be the "prime directive" for the industry -- not so). As for big-time, multi-million producers, well...we have no moral or legal obligation to keep them multi-millionnaires. Just because an industry is well-established doesn't mean it has to be preserved by law -- especially when it alienates customers, infringes on their constitutional rights and goes against technological development.
Here's a thought exercise: Do you as readily agree with the following?
"Those who would give up an essential element of human safety to gain a trivial liberty deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Define "essential safety" and "trivial liberty". You're just trying to relativize away a great quote. I personally don't go for that post-modern bullshit, so excuse if I don't participate in your petty linguistics.
The fact is, since time immemorial demagogues have often scared populations into giving up freedom by pointing to an imaginary and/or impotent enemy or other kind of menace. Remember McCarthyism? Now, the right to privacy is an essential liberty. After all, if you're talking to someone, you don't want someone else to eavesdrop, do you? Even if you could be planning some evil act. And so in order to protect some basic fundamental freedoms (freedom of speech, of movement, of privacy, etc.) we also must accept that some may abuse those freedoms in order to harm others. Just as the fact that Democracy, by giving power to those who get the most votes, does carry within itself the seeds to its own destruction: the people could vote for an anti-democratic party who, given a large enough majority, could replace democracy by a totalitarian regime. Anyway, many fascist regimes are quite popular when they first come into power...and yet democracy is the best system we have (or try to have...I don't know of any real democratic countries around...)
About your sig: why exactly do you support the brutal humiliation and slow destruction of a people who are so mad with despair that young girls spontaneously decide to blow themselves up out of rage? Don't you think that violence begets more violence, and that Israel's aggression will only perpetrate the pain and suffering this region has known for more than a generation? I think you need to look beyond the propaganda...
There is no freedom without security.
-- Wilhelm von Humboldt
To which I'll add: "There is on peace without justice." --Peter Tosh, Reggae Singer
Total freedom means survival of the strongest and least scrupulous and those valuable to them,
Actually, that is a logical fallacy, since total freedom also means freedom to live - "total" freedom, as in "optimal" freedom would mean that everybody shared the same freedom without infringing upon other people's freedom. The balance is delicate, I'll give you that - but it isn't between freedom and security. Rather it is between everyone's freedom. Of course we also need to discuss what types of freedom: obviously, no sane society will condone freedom to perpetrate crimes against other people (because then it would negate those people's own freedom). We can stick to the basic freedom that every human should have, amongst which are the classics (freedom to live, freedom of speech, freedom of movement), and everybody will be just fine. However, with that freedom comes some risk that people will use it to do bad things. That is just something we have to accept: limiting everyone's freedom because of inherent risks is not an acceptable solution.
All right, that's enough typing of the word "freedom" for a single day!
...except that the Govt. can already monitor e-mail (with Carnivore), phone conversations (with Echelon) and snail mail. So basically they need to whip up some way of controlling IRC as well, and CNN is only happy to oblige in preparing the national psyche for that (since AOL will make more money if people are forced to use corporate chat services). The sad thing is that, since 9/11, a lot of people seem willing to forego their hard-won civil liberties for security (or at least the illusion of).
This reminds me of two famous (and nearly identical) quotes:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
-- President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826
Well, don't you know? If you're not using 100% big corporations services such as AOL, then you're anti-big corporations and are a commie and a terrorist. Please report yourself to the authorities to serve as cheap prison labor.
While we're at it, why don't they just go ahead and just take money right off from our paychecks...soon it will be illegal to give something for free! It's hard not to become cynical in the face of such corporatism - at least they had the honesty of reminding us that AOL/Time Warner is the owner of CNN.
BTW, I found out that WinMX works rather well with Crossover Office, as long as you select the "separate windows" style interface. Also, you only get black text in the windows, so don't use the "inverted" scheme or you won't see anything. I'd give it a 85% compatibility ranking.
a) begin teaching politics (i.e. political theory and criticism) in high school
b) give tax credits to people who attend weekly political meetings
c) give more power to citizens at the local and municipal levels
d) increase funding for public media and make it more democratic
e) most importantly, the governing elite must stop treating people like sheep. This of course is the hardest thing to do. Even though they pay lip service to democracy, the last thing they want is actual power to the people. Their idea of democracy is that the people are permitted to vote once every couple of years, and then should remain blissfully unaware of matters of state. This in turn makes the people feel powerless and makes them cynical, or even paranoid (to the point of hoarding guns thinking that they can stand up to the Man when he comes to get them...)
The first step to empowering the people (and making democracy more than the empty shell it is right now) is for the governing elite to consider the citizenry as its true boss, not as some dangerous mob that needs constant herding.
Your turn, now: how does owning a gun increase my political empowerment, considering that a concerted (i.e. organized), general uprising of the armed population seems quite unlikely to happen spontaneously.
Definitely, representative democracy as it is now in the U.S. is a sham. However, it wouldn't take too much to greatly improve it. There are simple ways to increase popular participation in politics - something the governing elite clearly doesn't want!
The fact is, it is not democracy at fault here, but plain old political apathy, general ignorance and a very, very powerful propaganda apparatus.
That might have been true in the 18th century, but nowadays the fact that people carry guns in the U.S. doesn't prevent the government AND corporate oligopolies AND private associations from wielding near-absolute power. Their power is not only military, it is also economic and most importantly ideologic. What good are guns against that? Zip, nothing, nada.
The basic assumption that the government is the enemy is also fallacious. In a democracy, the government represents the people. It is in fact (ideally) the people's weapon against the rich and powerful who would exploit them. I'll admit that in reality it's mostly on the side of power - going hand in hand with transnationals who want us to be consumers, not involved citizens. Remember, though, that the government is only at the service of those non-democratic megacorporations because we let it be like that. The tools to reclaim the government are not weapons - because the govt. has better, more devastating ones anyway - but rather getting the population (not just a few individuals) involved in the political process. The problem is, we just won't use these tools which are at our disposal - whether it is out of ignorance, disorganization or simple laziness.
Guns have not prevented the U.S. population from being totally excluded from the political process and placed at the mercy of powerful, autocratic private corporations and their governmental partners.
Suicide and Murder rates (per 100,000 inhabitants)
--------------------Suicide---Murder
United Kingdom______8.0_______0.9
United States______11.9_______9.4 (as per the United Nations)
U.S.A._____________11.1_______7.0 (as per the U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1997)
Guns by themselves don't kill people, but they greatly facilitate the killing of people. There are no good arguments for the lack of gun control in the States, save perhaps for the feeling of power that it gives to its owner. [begin sarcasm] Since as a nation americans seem addicted to power, taking the guns away might be too big of a shock to bear...[end sarcasm]
Tried it yesterday. Works flawlessly. Only problem is that there's no compose keys (also known as dead keys) for typing accents (I use the French Canadian keyboard map), so I can't use it for writing in French. Everything else is near-perfect. Even Quicken 2001 works reasonably well (although you can't connect to the Internet).
I'd like to see a comparison of stability between, say, "Office 2000 running on Windows 2000" and "Office 2000 running on Crossover on (whatever)". I don't know if it would turn out the way you think (despite Linux being more stable in general).
I'll tell you about it when I try it out...but you shouldn't just assume that it's going to be less stable than running it on Windows (that shows a definite bias). Codeweavers have done a great job with Crossover Plugin - I have yet to have either Quicktime or Windows Media Player crash on me. Not once.
The other consideration is future. Many businesses spend much more than $55/desktop to keep current with the latest version of Office. Is Crossover going to work for the next version?
That's an interesting question, though. Why do businesses need to buy new versions of Office? Do their needs change that much? What about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" The problem is that such an approach isn't ideal for keeping Microsoft's revenue stream at a regular level, so MS has developed an elaborate swindle: they put out new version of Office that are almost compatible with preceding ones, but add new features that aren't essential. They could very well implement these new features as plugins, but they don't, therefore forcing people to get the new version. Now, if other people want to be 100% compatible, they'll have to upgrade too, and so on. To me, Office 2000 is more than enough for a company. The Linux/Crossover/Office solution seems like a good way for a business to get out of the Microsoft trap...Anyway, I'll try it tonight and see.
Probably not. I have anti-aliasing on my Linux desktop (which looks incredible thanks to the Xft hack - much better than anything I've seen on Windows so far) but I don't see any anti-aliasing on Crossover Plugin when I start it. From what I can tell, Windows and Linux handle fonts in a completely different manner.
Perhaps it is possible to write an AA plugin for Crosssover, though...that would be sweet (even though it still won't look as good as my hacked gdkxft fonts...)
I'm still going to buy this, mind you. StarOffice is great, but sometimes I just need total compatibility (and also it loads faster).
Well, it remains to be seen if these were bona fide black holes or just a phenomena that exhibits the same observable characteristics as the theoretical model of a black hole.Also, the creation of such "experimental" black holes - if that's indeed what they are - is not proof that there are actual "natural" black holes, i.e. the results of collapsing stars.
In any case, this is exciting research, even though it might make some cheesy Disney flicks totally obsolete...
Actually, that's not quite true. Black hole simulations using sound waves have been produced in labs -- not actual, gravitational black holes (which would be quite dangerous, I assume). There's still no proof that black holes really exist. This new theory is quite interesting, as it solves many physics incongruities...
We look at Apes brutality and consider them Animals
Actually that's not quite true, not to modern science anyway. Apes are quite intelligent animals: if taught young, they can learn to use sign language and to do simple tasks. Adult chimps are usually considered to have the intellect of a seven year-old child. They are said to be very "political" animals, who negotiate with each other in very complex ways.
I also wouldn't call them "brutal"; physical, yes, much more than us, but they can also be gentle. You don't need intelligence to have emotions and empathy. If I can pet a cat and it feels loved and happy, then why wouldn't a more intelligent life form be able to have the same rapport with me? Furthermore, when you say that we are more intelligent than apes they same way aliens are more intelligent than us, what you're saying (logically speaking) is that they are not that much more advanced than us...that seems to contradict your other arguments.
In any case, you really shouldn't speak of our closest biological relatives in such derogatory tones. Apes are cool. Also, you shouldn't talk as if you knew for sure how aliens are and what they think (i.e. "Aliens look at us...consider us...Aliens are more intelligent than us...etc."). Frankly, it makes you look like...a bit of a loony. Let's just say that it doesn't add to your credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you show your arrogance. Chavez was elected, therefore he is a legitimate leader. The fact that he may be left-leaning, a socialist or even a communist has nothing to do with it. In a democray, if people vote for you you are elected. That's how it works, in case you didn't know. There were no signs during the last election that the vote was rigged and in fact even his political opponents have not tried to play that card. Your banter reminds me of cold-war era fearmongering by strident right-winger that we had to napalm thousands of civilians in order to "fight communism".
I know quite a lot more about South American politics that you'd give me credit for: no left-wing government has ever seized power by vote-rigging and intimidation - that has always been the perogative of militaristic juntas. AFAIK, the only non-elected left-wing government in Latin America is Cuba. But even then, if you actually took the time to look at how their political system worked, you'd see that they do elect representatives, who do exert influence on how the country is run. While I would prefer if Castro called in elections (he would probably be elected anyway), Cuba is still more of a democratic country than, says, Colombia.
For your information, it wasn't the army who conducted the coup, it was a coalition of generals, industrials, union leaders and church leaders - in other words, all of those who really profit when democracy remains just an empty shell. Most of the lower officers and foot soldiers supported Chavez, hence his return to power. For someone calling me ignorant, you sure need to read up on this a little!
As for indymedia, it is no more biased than The Economist or The New York Times...it's just that its bias doesn't agree with your own. It really doesn't matter, however, since most of the information I've gotten on this matter has come from "mainstream" source (such as the NYT, the Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, the Irish Times, the International Herald Tribune). So don't try to pigeonhole me with your condescending attitude - I'm confident my media sources cover a wider range than yours...
For the 900lb. gorilla, only one thing matters: its own interests. Similarly, democracy is only important for the U.S. government if it suits America's national interest. This has been the case since at least 1953, with the CIA -backed coup against Iran and has been going on ever since. I know it, you know it, so let's drop the bullshit.
For the record, the suppresion of democratic protest at Tiananmen Square was a tragedy. On that we agree. But to draw a parralel with what happened in Venezuela is both ludicrous and misleading. Note, however, that the anti-democratic repression in China did not prevent it from keeping Most Favored Nation status (for trade purposes) with the U.S., allegedly the champion of democracy...
Yeah, like we should believe you. You're nothing more than part of the propaganda machine, spewing lies so that you can profit from good ole-fashioned corruption once the "old gang" is back in power. If you had any balls you wouldn't post as an Anonymous Coward but would try to support your fabrications with some evidence. Of course, there is no such evidence so you just invent incredibly moronic statements like:
He also has "Círculos Bolivarianos", which are groups of armed men in the poorest neighbourhoods, there to produce terror and instigate civil unrest (and pro-Chavez feelings amongst the poorest elements of society)
That doesn't make any sense: you can't generate support for you by terrorizing people! You must really think we are a bunch of idiots to say things like that! The fact is, the great majority of the people stand behind Chavez because he has tried (with moderate success) to address the wide gap between the rich and the poor in Venezuela and tried to dismantle the network of corruption (of which you are obviously a part of) that poisoned the country.
If you really don't like Chavez, vote him out, don't break the law with a coup. This whole story has a real embarassment for the U.S., and the whole world has noticed. Don't expect much more help from them in the months to come...
A good example of this is the recent attempted coup in Venezuela: North American media have all relayed the information reported in Venezuelan media that government troops fired on anti-Chavez protesters. This, you'll remember, is what prompted his (ultimately unsuccessful) removal from power by the coup leaders -- which subsequently led the Bush administration to trample the ideals of democracy by refusing to denounce the coup (they didn't even call it like that at the time)! While the White House is pathetically trying to backpeddle out of this mess, it is still saying that Chavez will have to respect democracy (how Orwellian!) and not repress political dissent. However, nobody stopped to think if what was shown by the Venezuelan media was the whole truth, even though they are known to be overtly and aggressively anti-Chavez. As it happens, testimony from people who were there, including an Irish filmmaker, is starting to reveal that government troops were not the only ones to shoot, and perhaps not even the first one. Another telling detail: most of those killed by snipers on that day were Chavistas (pro-Chavez) who had come to confront the anti-Chavez demonstration...
Yes, I'm happy to "relativize away" quotes that send a if-you-disagree-with-me-you-deserve-to-be-shot message
;-) Or, I could say that "A Beautiful Mind" didn't deserve to win the Oscar for Best Picture - but I wouldn't support an overturn of the decision!
Well, you misinterpreted both my post and the original quotes, if I may say so. The meaning of the quote is that when people start putting more value in safety than in liberty, things can (and often do) go down pretty bad. Look at it this way: totalitarian regimes are usually pretty safe - as long as you tow the party line. Crime was almost nonexistent in the Cold War-era U.S.S.R. But dissent was severely punished. So people were safe, but not free.
I only said that I don't agree that someone deserves to have their safety taken away or to be stripped of all of their liberties if they were to vote differently at the polls than you.
Now where the hell did you get that from? You're blatantly distorting my words - I am a true democrat, and would never advocate such a thing. I'm insulted that you would give me such intentions and appreciate it if you could apologize.
On the other hand, I understand where you may have misunderstood the original quote. I think it has to do with the word "deserve". You automatically conclude that, when Franklin or Jefferson say that those who would sacrifice freedom for security do not deserve neither, that they are advocating that such freedom and security be removed from them: they are simply making a moral observation. Like someone who receives a gift but doesn't deserve it: you can state that fact without advocating taking the gift away. I'll give you another (partisan) example: I can say that Bush didn't deserve to win the last election, since he got a lesser portion of the national vote than Gore. That doesn't mean that I'm advocating his overthrow (though I'm sure President Chavez of Venezuela would say that he was responsible for his own demise...
There is a subtle distinction here, I hope you can understand it.
People use this quote by Franklin when they are trying to sound intellectual[...]Is that what you consider post-modern?
I wasn't trying to sound like an intellectual (I've got my own website to do that!), I just put it there because I like it. I think it's a really good quote. I did think it through, and I still think it's a great quote. I personally think that you have simply misunderstood its meaning. The post-modern thing is a reference to many people I know who just take the meaning out of everything by excessively relativizing it (it usually boils down to "but, what is life?" or worse "but, what is art?"). That's trying to sound intellectual.
Don't worry, I'm not into flame wars. But I am outraged at the fact that the american media constantly describes Palestinian attacks as "aggression" while Israeli attacks are called "retaliation". I'm outraged that these attacks, which destroy innocent lives on both sides, are called "terrorism" when perpetrated by civilians and "collateral damage" when done by soldiers. I'm outraged that the two sides are judged as equal partners in the conflict when one has the most powerful army in the region (the fourth largest in the world) and the other has no other weapons than a few old assault rifles and makeshift bombs. I'm outraged that Sharon, responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Chatila, is now seen as "a man of peace" by Bush when he is only interested in furthering the war and increasing illegal settlements in the occupied territory. I'm outraged that the majority of people in Israel and America don't understand that you can't eliminate terrorism by humiliating and oppressing an entire population, and that in fact it has the opposing effect of radicalizing moderates - even William F. Buckley understands this! If your father had been killed by the people that occupy your land, if they beat up your younger brother in front of you, if they harassed you, prevented you from going to work, flattened your house, arrested you without a warrant and stripped you naked in the middle of the road, wouldn't you want some kind of retribution? I'm outraged at the lies of the Israeli military, who say that the monks in Bethleem are held hostages by the besieged palestinians that took refuge in the Church of the Nativity, when those very monks have said that they are staying behind of their own free will to avoid a bloodshed. I'm outraged at the policy of targeted killings adopted by the Israeli government, which is an insult to the rule of law because (among others) of the high risk of executing an innocent - Tim McVeigh got a trial, didn't he?
Israelis have the right to live in peace, but not to oppress another people to achieve this. Sharon's military initiative will not bring peace for the simple reason that two wrongs don't make a right. The whole world understands this, save for Israel and the U.S. (where the media nearly all have a pro-Israel bias). Sharon is now thumbing his nose at George Bush, who is losing is war-earned prestige by the minute - what has all this brought back to the U.S., save for the animosity of the arab world and the embarassment of allies? Sharon does not respect the U.S., he only appreciates the military help - twice last week, he defended the behavior of his army by implying that the U.S. army in Afghanistan killed civilians indiscriminately...are those the words of a staunch ally?
As they say: with friends like these...
The record industry doesn't have that many options. The best one seems to me to start giving away the virtual (i.e. the actual songs) and sell the material (i.e. nice hard to break cases, quality booklets or even books). The special edition Kid A from Radiohead is a good example of a CD you want to buy (if you like Radiohead, that is).
This, combined to other non-downloadable merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc.) and -- of course -- live performances, should enable musicians to keep making a living while preventing customer alienation (which you'd imagine would be the "prime directive" for the industry -- not so). As for big-time, multi-million producers, well...we have no moral or legal obligation to keep them multi-millionnaires. Just because an industry is well-established doesn't mean it has to be preserved by law -- especially when it alienates customers, infringes on their constitutional rights and goes against technological development.
Here's a thought exercise: Do you as readily agree with the following?
"Those who would give up an essential element of human safety to gain a trivial liberty deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Define "essential safety" and "trivial liberty". You're just trying to relativize away a great quote. I personally don't go for that post-modern bullshit, so excuse if I don't participate in your petty linguistics.
The fact is, since time immemorial demagogues have often scared populations into giving up freedom by pointing to an imaginary and/or impotent enemy or other kind of menace. Remember McCarthyism? Now, the right to privacy is an essential liberty. After all, if you're talking to someone, you don't want someone else to eavesdrop, do you? Even if you could be planning some evil act. And so in order to protect some basic fundamental freedoms (freedom of speech, of movement, of privacy, etc.) we also must accept that some may abuse those freedoms in order to harm others. Just as the fact that Democracy, by giving power to those who get the most votes, does carry within itself the seeds to its own destruction: the people could vote for an anti-democratic party who, given a large enough majority, could replace democracy by a totalitarian regime. Anyway, many fascist regimes are quite popular when they first come into power...and yet democracy is the best system we have (or try to have...I don't know of any real democratic countries around...)
About your sig: why exactly do you support the brutal humiliation and slow destruction of a people who are so mad with despair that young girls spontaneously decide to blow themselves up out of rage? Don't you think that violence begets more violence, and that Israel's aggression will only perpetrate the pain and suffering this region has known for more than a generation? I think you need to look beyond the propaganda...
Hmm...of course I meant "There is NO peace without justice."
And I triple-checked for typos, too...
There is no freedom without security.
-- Wilhelm von Humboldt
To which I'll add: "There is on peace without justice."
--Peter Tosh, Reggae Singer
Total freedom means survival of the strongest and least scrupulous and those valuable to them,
Actually, that is a logical fallacy, since total freedom also means freedom to live - "total" freedom, as in "optimal" freedom would mean that everybody shared the same freedom without infringing upon other people's freedom. The balance is delicate, I'll give you that - but it isn't between freedom and security. Rather it is between everyone's freedom. Of course we also need to discuss what types of freedom: obviously, no sane society will condone freedom to perpetrate crimes against other people (because then it would negate those people's own freedom). We can stick to the basic freedom that every human should have, amongst which are the classics (freedom to live, freedom of speech, freedom of movement), and everybody will be just fine. However, with that freedom comes some risk that people will use it to do bad things. That is just something we have to accept: limiting everyone's freedom because of inherent risks is not an acceptable solution.
All right, that's enough typing of the word "freedom" for a single day!
I know...but they're concerned that they won't be able to trace back the comments to their author (I guess).
...except that the Govt. can already monitor e-mail (with Carnivore), phone conversations (with Echelon) and snail mail. So basically they need to whip up some way of controlling IRC as well, and CNN is only happy to oblige in preparing the national psyche for that (since AOL will make more money if people are forced to use corporate chat services). The sad thing is that, since 9/11, a lot of people seem willing to forego their hard-won civil liberties for security (or at least the illusion of).
This reminds me of two famous (and nearly identical) quotes:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.
Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
-- President Thomas Jefferson.
1743-1826
Well, don't you know? If you're not using 100% big corporations services such as AOL, then you're anti-big corporations and are a commie and a terrorist. Please report yourself to the authorities to serve as cheap prison labor.
While we're at it, why don't they just go ahead and just take money right off from our paychecks...soon it will be illegal to give something for free! It's hard not to become cynical in the face of such corporatism - at least they had the honesty of reminding us that AOL/Time Warner is the owner of CNN.
BTW, I found out that WinMX works rather well with Crossover Office, as long as you select the "separate windows" style interface. Also, you only get black text in the windows, so don't use the "inverted" scheme or you won't see anything. I'd give it a 85% compatibility ranking.
Yes, he is using a stylus. And he's using that stylus on clay tablets. (Hmm, I wonder if that will go well with the OCR scanner...)
a) begin teaching politics (i.e. political theory and criticism) in high school
b) give tax credits to people who attend weekly political meetings
c) give more power to citizens at the local and municipal levels
d) increase funding for public media and make it more democratic
e) most importantly, the governing elite must stop treating people like sheep. This of course is the hardest thing to do. Even though they pay lip service to democracy, the last thing they want is actual power to the people. Their idea of democracy is that the people are permitted to vote once every couple of years, and then should remain blissfully unaware of matters of state. This in turn makes the people feel powerless and makes them cynical, or even paranoid (to the point of hoarding guns thinking that they can stand up to the Man when he comes to get them...)
The first step to empowering the people (and making democracy more than the empty shell it is right now) is for the governing elite to consider the citizenry as its true boss, not as some dangerous mob that needs constant herding.
Your turn, now: how does owning a gun increase my political empowerment, considering that a concerted (i.e. organized), general uprising of the armed population seems quite unlikely to happen spontaneously.
Definitely, representative democracy as it is now in the U.S. is a sham. However, it wouldn't take too much to greatly improve it. There are simple ways to increase popular participation in politics - something the governing elite clearly doesn't want!
The fact is, it is not democracy at fault here, but plain old political apathy, general ignorance and a very, very powerful propaganda apparatus.
That might have been true in the 18th century, but nowadays the fact that people carry guns in the U.S. doesn't prevent the government AND corporate oligopolies AND private associations from wielding near-absolute power. Their power is not only military, it is also economic and most importantly ideologic. What good are guns against that? Zip, nothing, nada.
The basic assumption that the government is the enemy is also fallacious. In a democracy, the government represents the people. It is in fact (ideally) the people's weapon against the rich and powerful who would exploit them. I'll admit that in reality it's mostly on the side of power - going hand in hand with transnationals who want us to be consumers, not involved citizens. Remember, though, that the government is only at the service of those non-democratic megacorporations because we let it be like that. The tools to reclaim the government are not weapons - because the govt. has better, more devastating ones anyway - but rather getting the population (not just a few individuals) involved in the political process. The problem is, we just won't use these tools which are at our disposal - whether it is out of ignorance, disorganization or simple laziness.
Guns have not prevented the U.S. population from being totally excluded from the political process and placed at the mercy of powerful, autocratic private corporations and their governmental partners.
Suicide and Murder rates (per 100,000 inhabitants)
--------------------Suicide---Murder
United Kingdom______8.0_______0.9
United States______11.9_______9.4
(as per the United Nations)
U.S.A._____________11.1_______7.0
(as per the U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1997)
Guns by themselves don't kill people, but they greatly facilitate the killing of people. There are no good arguments for the lack of gun control in the States, save perhaps for the feeling of power that it gives to its owner. [begin sarcasm] Since as a nation americans seem addicted to power, taking the guns away might be too big of a shock to bear...[end sarcasm]
Tried it yesterday. Works flawlessly. Only problem is that there's no compose keys (also known as dead keys) for typing accents (I use the French Canadian keyboard map), so I can't use it for writing in French. Everything else is near-perfect. Even Quicken 2001 works reasonably well (although you can't connect to the Internet).
I'd like to see a comparison of stability between, say, "Office 2000 running on Windows 2000" and "Office 2000 running on Crossover on (whatever)". I don't know if it would turn out the way you think (despite Linux being more stable in general).
I'll tell you about it when I try it out...but you shouldn't just assume that it's going to be less stable than running it on Windows (that shows a definite bias). Codeweavers have done a great job with Crossover Plugin - I have yet to have either Quicktime or Windows Media Player crash on me. Not once.
The other consideration is future. Many businesses spend much more than $55/desktop to keep current with the latest version of Office. Is Crossover going to work for the next version?
That's an interesting question, though. Why do businesses need to buy new versions of Office? Do their needs change that much? What about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" The problem is that such an approach isn't ideal for keeping Microsoft's revenue stream at a regular level, so MS has developed an elaborate swindle: they put out new version of Office that are almost compatible with preceding ones, but add new features that aren't essential. They could very well implement these new features as plugins, but they don't, therefore forcing people to get the new version. Now, if other people want to be 100% compatible, they'll have to upgrade too, and so on. To me, Office 2000 is more than enough for a company. The Linux/Crossover/Office solution seems like a good way for a business to get out of the Microsoft trap...Anyway, I'll try it tonight and see.
Probably not. I have anti-aliasing on my Linux desktop (which looks incredible thanks to the Xft hack - much better than anything I've seen on Windows so far) but I don't see any anti-aliasing on Crossover Plugin when I start it. From what I can tell, Windows and Linux handle fonts in a completely different manner.
Perhaps it is possible to write an AA plugin for Crosssover, though...that would be sweet (even though it still won't look as good as my hacked gdkxft fonts...)
I'm still going to buy this, mind you. StarOffice is great, but sometimes I just need total compatibility (and also it loads faster).
That would be worth buying a firewire card (and an iPod) alone. C'mon, somebody, program it now! ;-)
Moe: "This baby can deep-fry a buffalo in two seconds."
Homer: "But I want one now!"
Well, it remains to be seen if these were bona fide black holes or just a phenomena that exhibits the same observable characteristics as the theoretical model of a black hole.Also, the creation of such "experimental" black holes - if that's indeed what they are - is not proof that there are actual "natural" black holes, i.e. the results of collapsing stars.
In any case, this is exciting research, even though it might make some cheesy Disney flicks totally obsolete...
Actually, that's not quite true. Black hole simulations using sound waves have been produced in labs -- not actual, gravitational black holes (which would be quite dangerous, I assume). There's still no proof that black holes really exist. This new theory is quite interesting, as it solves many physics incongruities...
We look at Apes brutality and consider them Animals
Actually that's not quite true, not to modern science anyway. Apes are quite intelligent animals: if taught young, they can learn to use sign language and to do simple tasks. Adult chimps are usually considered to have the intellect of a seven year-old child. They are said to be very "political" animals, who negotiate with each other in very complex ways.
I also wouldn't call them "brutal"; physical, yes, much more than us, but they can also be gentle. You don't need intelligence to have emotions and empathy. If I can pet a cat and it feels loved and happy, then why wouldn't a more intelligent life form be able to have the same rapport with me? Furthermore, when you say that we are more intelligent than apes they same way aliens are more intelligent than us, what you're saying (logically speaking) is that they are not that much more advanced than us...that seems to contradict your other arguments.
In any case, you really shouldn't speak of our closest biological relatives in such derogatory tones. Apes are cool. Also, you shouldn't talk as if you knew for sure how aliens are and what they think (i.e. "Aliens look at us...consider us...Aliens are more intelligent than us...etc."). Frankly, it makes you look like...a bit of a loony. Let's just say that it doesn't add to your credibility.
Live long and prosper, earthling.