Ah, the pleasure of shutting down ads with nuclear weapons... It gives the concept of zapping an entirely new meaning!
Re:Nice Anti-Usian Propaganda, Now Some Facts
on
Cuba Switching to Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How much political dissent is allowed?
Actually I forgot to mention that when I was in Cuba, it was a month or two after national elections. The system there is similar to California's: you can vote Yes to confirm those in power, or No and specify whom you would prefer to take power.
Now, of course you may quote Grampa Josip about "it's not the people who vote that matter, it's the people who count the votes". I have no sources on whether elections are rigged and if the case to what extent. Yet, whereas I saw many more ads for Yes, the largest ad I saw was a roadside No, roughly the canonical 3×6 meters.
European socialists (you know, the type with taxes > 50%)
I live in Norway, considered to have the highest tax level on earth. My tax percent is about 25%. Those myths about 50% tax rate are (sometimes deliberate) misconceptions about marginal tax rate. For instance, in Norway, income beyond about 60,000 dollars is taxed at an higher percent.
The US gov't's problem with Cuba is narrowly limited to its practice of oppression.
Given the record of support for Saddam Hussein, most southern-american dictatorships, the organization of the Escola de las Americas, arming the Contras in Nicaragua, frienship with the house of Saud, collaboration with the regime of Francisco Franco, and countless others (and I've kept myself to only a few over the last 50 years), your statement is laughable and is the result of overexposure to propaganda.
The US are pissed at Castro because he nationalized US-owned cuban industries, that US businessmen had bought or started by doing business with the corrupt regime of Batista. The same way, the UK was pissed at Iraq since a long time, since Iraq had nationalized assets of BP a few decades ago. Formerly-rich cubans in Florida are a resource of votes in a swing state. Cuba is a former ally of the Soviet Union and therefore adversary to the US, and its leadership is unwilling to let US interests in. Talking about freedom of speech in Cuba takes away the focus from the freedom of speech at home. Really, it's all about the money.
If there's a problem with US foreign policy, today as well as during the cold war, is that they rather protect American economic interests instead of what should be the American values (freedom of speech and the like, as you find them in the Constitution).
One of the nasty side effects is that economic or strategic short-term gain is often to the detriment of the long-term: the US financed Mujahedeens in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, only to find them bringing down the WTC in New York. They knew they were fundies, they only cared they were shooting Russians and local Communists; it should be obvious that if he's a wacko, you should not hand him guns.
Now, to take a leap: what is an example of a dictatorial regime currently sponsored by the US, that is full of fundie nuts? Well, that's Pakistan. Contrary to all previous situations, however, Pakistan has got nukes. If Musharraf ends like the Shah, we're in for some creepy times.
Re:Nice Anti-Usian Propaganda, Now Some Facts
on
Cuba Switching to Linux
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I was in Cuba in I think 1992, in the middle of the periodo especial, when western press reported of continuous power outages, no running water, oppressive policing. We (me and dad) were in a group of 8 tourists, and there was no VIP among us, so no chance they were polishing the country for us (though the tour guides obviously did not bring us to the worst conceivable places).
Facts observed:
Havana was lit at night, all night long. No power outages observed in the non-hotel neighborhood.
Everybody looked decently cared for, no limos around but there were no starving people as the ones my father had seen in Romania in 1988 (And before you jump: Ceausescu was the most US-friendly East-block leader, there are even pictures of him with Mickey Mouse and such propaganda crap).
People were short on two things: soap and chewing gum.
The most invasive action of policing we witnessed was a policeman picking up empty bottles and putting them in the garbage bin from the street after a late-night street party organised by the locals in Havana. You read "a policeman picking up empty bottles".
I've been to NY last November. Do I have to tell you all where I saw the most striking poverty, in Manhattan or in Pinar del Rio? And don't jump saying "but here we are on average richer", I know that, that's actually my point. With all that wealth, no one seems to want to get rid of poverty, a feat well within range of the American economy.
Is Cuba a place that had the same leader for too long time? Granted. Is Cuba a place that has a low GNP, much lower than the US'? Granted too. Were the kangaroo trials on three men who tried to hijack a boat to the US and a few days later got executed a shame? Sure bet. Would Cuba be better off with socialism out and market economy in? I say, look at Haiti.
Lesson learnt: if it's about a country your country does not like, for any reason do not trust the information you get. No matter which country is yours and which the other. Either go and check for yourself, or simply guard your doubts.
wind resistance is cubed every time you double your speed.
Squared.
No, it's cubed. Drag force is squared with velocity, but power is force×velocity again. Since it's power that relates to kilometrage, the cubed figure is correct. I guess it depends on how you define "resistance".
Maybe they meant "smart-phone users", as users of "smart phones", indicating UMTS, Bluetooth or somehow advanced mobile phones that allow some form of virus. In the same article there are other two instances of usage of the phrase "smart phone".
I agree the 74% figure is total bull though, no matter the sample.
The point is not Giuliana Sgrena. She is not a weapons expert and I don't expect her tale to be accurate to the last technical detail, as the whole episode lasted only a few seconds and during these she probably thought of otherwise than writing the next story. The point is an hostage being retrieved through a paid ransom.
Insurgents kidnap Italian
Italian government pays ransom
Hostage is freed, resistance gets money
Insurgents kidnap another Italian since the Italian government pays, go back to 1
Of course the US don't want more money going to the resistance, and do have a case in discouraging ransom payment; one of the ways of dealing with this might be "you can pay, but we are going to kill them before they board the plane anyway". It sounds far-fetched, but given the respect for non-US human life that the US administrations usually have (1 2345), it is not impossible that sectors in the military would act thusly.
It would otherwise be interesting to actually see those satellite pictures, not just a link by an American to an American news site quoting an American TV station about an American satellite.
And no, she did not like the US, nor did the experience much to improve her views. Same can be said for the majority of Italians.
Weird, now that you mention it that's a similar way they tried to kill Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam, making him drive through Victor Charlie land.
Anyway I was not suggesting this is the way things surely happened, I just pointed out that the fact the soldiers helped Sgrena and others out of the wreck does not mean someone set the stage for an accident waiting to happen.
It's not necessary for the soldiers to knowingly be on a mission to murder her. If someone high up wanted Sgrena dead, they might have "forgotten" to tell the chek-point soldiers about the incoming car, expecting all of the occupants would have been killed by the soldiers. When the soldiers realised it was no suicide missions, they rescued the survivors from the wreck.
...U.S. troops in Iraq shot to death Nicola Calipari, the Italian intelligence agent whose country paid a random (and thereby funding the insurgency further and encouraging more kidnappings)...
About this Chicago-boys stereotype that lower taxes increase productivity, I'd like to point out that in the bar next door (a major source of wisdom in advanced microeconomics), when the government raises taxes I hear people saying "Dammit, they raised taxes... this year I have to work two weeks more to pay the mortgage!". I never hear "dammit, they raised taxes... I feel demotivated, I think I'll quit my job".
Conversely, when the government lowers taxes, I hear "Wow! This year I'm taking a month's vacation in Tahiti, to hell with the job!", and not "Wow, I'm so motivated I'll work every Sunday now!".
These findings in Laffer-&-Co. style are based on the utterly false premise that people are greedy and only want to maximise their income; this makes calculations easy, but conclusions are likely as false as the assumption. Some people are greedy, but most people just want to earn enough to get along. Only insane workaholics prefer more money in the bank than spending quality time with their family or doing what they like to do (if their main interest is work and they would do it even unpaid is a special case).
Say what you want, but it's interesting to note that the current buzzspots are aligned exactly along the main East-West axis in Eurasia (from China to Europe) as indicated by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel.
In the UK, for example, it's illegal for a company to pay its employees below the minimum wage, even if the employees are also the directors and owners of the company.
Bit bizarre, really.
In Italy we have a saying - made the law, found the scam. Without this "bizarre" law, Mr. Burns could create a daughter company ("Homer Simpson Ltd."), make Homer Simpson CEO of that one-man company (Woohoo!), and "friendly agree" that Homer Simpson Ltd. will maintain its job (pardon, contract) at the power plant accepting a monthly payment well below the minimum wage (Doh!).
In Italy we still have a similar situation when it comes to fire employees: companies with less than 15 employees have a much easier time firing people, especially because litigation possibilities are limited for the fired guy: in larger companies the guy can request reintegration in the company if the layoff was not justified, in smaller ones he can get at most money. As a result, many large companies are split in 15-employee blocks.
The Economist is the same magazine that supported Bjørn Lomborg, thereby proving their utter incompetence in environmental science. They defended him in spite of clear and very detailed indications from the scientific environment that he was nuts.
I suppose they will know economics when they talk about it, but they demonstrated an inappropriate habit of pontificating on things they don't have a clue about. I for one think they burned a lot of karma.
BS! You can't see the map (grayed out), but you can turn on the satellite - and it's visible! I for one see clearly an airfield (looks abandoned, yet there is a plane in the middle of the airstrip, and some vehicles that look like trucks).
I really wonder wh###CARRIER LOST
No, this is no April fools stuff. The Pope is dying in Italy and no newspaper is in the mood of a joke. Furthermore newspapers do not have the habit of pranking around just because it's April 1 anyway.
By the way, the problem is that, when Berlusconi does something illegal, it is made legal as soon as the trial approaches. This was done for account tampering, TV station ownership limits, and corruption in judiciary proceedings, and probably other things I don't remember right now - so Rfid tracking might become legal at some point in Italy. As Daniele Luttazzi put it, "let's hope he has a joint soon".
As the Economist noted,
...The arresting thing about Scientific American's coverage, however, was not this barrage of ineffective rejoinders but the editor's notion of what was going on: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist," he announced....
Quite impressive that some people still believe that buffoon Lomborg. Here is the usual website by Kåre Fog, with all the errors (pretty word for "lies") of Lomborg exposed.
This example is quite nice: in order to demonstrate that forest area is not only stable, but even increasing, in spite of all deforestation environmentalist litany along about, Lomborg has used statistics taken from a time when countries were still joining the FAO - as a result, looking at his data, all the Borneo forest appears from nothing in 1961. Never mind that FAO (Lomborg's source) published a corrected data set, that clearly shows the decline, before Lomborg's book in English edition.
As a side note: I have not seen that many articles by Lomborg in the scientific literature. In fact, according to his own website, he's published one peer-reviewed article only once, and not about environment (and I did not personally check whether it exists really, it would not be the first time the guy lies). A scientist who tries to dodge peer review by printing books instead of submitting articles is most likely just a charlatan and a snake-oil salesman. The Skeptical Environmentalist can quietly join cold fusion in the drawer of junk science.
Your definition of proof simply dodges any sane definition of proof. Things fall down, always have, always will as long there is a down, because there is a gravity field with gravitons merrily telling mass particles that there is other mass around. Your lame and cheap shot at playing with definition is tantamount to mental masturbation. You are looking for a why when the question is rather how.
As for invisible matter: no one is forcing me or IMAX theaters to sotp talk about visible matter. It's a theory worked out by people who are trying to understand how stuff works, and they may well change their mind sometime in the future, and they will happily share their own doubts about it. It's not a holy book thing.
Newton's laws of motion were an approximation good for speeds well below that of light, and are fully acceptable in most contexts, other than being simpler. You are looking for a final solution to all physics, well there is none and probably there will never be in any foreseeable future.
Evolution has been observed countless times in science. Penicillin does not work anymore because bacteria have evolved on a worldwide scale. Giant crabs have taken over the Norwegian seabed replacing the previous sea fauna. 16% of humans in northern Europe have a gene that was selected by the black death and gives HIV immunity, before the black death it was just 1 human over 20,000.
I'm fed up with this bullshit about evolution being "not proven". It is proven and is solid like a T-34 shell. As in every branch of science it's a large patchwork, it may require refining, adjustments, interpretations, contributions, but there is no way the world was created from a space fart by some nutty long-bearded prick. Dammit, genetic algorithms are regularly used in mathematics! What other proof do you morons need to understand that it works?
And I'm puzzled why the creationist nuts don't use the most obvious argument against evolution: Americans are getting dumber and dumber.
[Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq] We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? [Secretary of State Madeleine Albright] I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Seems to me you are deluding yourself with the good old "we-are-the-good-guys" rethorics. About the Iran-Iraq war, it was started by Saddam Hussein (guess who backed him), not by the fundamentalists. And no, you won't find a (reasonable) islamic minister that cheers at the sight of gruesome civilian deaths either, but it's the unreasonable ones that make it into the news.
The current morale that forbids religious leaders from cheering to the sight of dead enemies is only recent, and maybe temporary. Only few decades ago, it was common for religious leaders to support racial segregation, discrimination and persecution; many WW2 criminals fled to South America with the help of the Vatican, and even current high-ranking cardinals have been in good terms with bloody dictators as Pinochet of Chile or Videla of Argentina. The Vatican excommunicated communists, but I never heard such a staunch opposition of South African apartheid.
In short, you seem to look only at what reassures you that "we are the good guys". I say that no matter what religion you pick, it's always an Inherently Evil Thing(tm) to ideologically assume that proposition X is true.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the pleasure of shutting down ads with nuclear weapons... It gives the concept of zapping an entirely new meaning!
Actually I forgot to mention that when I was in Cuba, it was a month or two after national elections. The system there is similar to California's: you can vote Yes to confirm those in power, or No and specify whom you would prefer to take power.
Now, of course you may quote Grampa Josip about "it's not the people who vote that matter, it's the people who count the votes". I have no sources on whether elections are rigged and if the case to what extent. Yet, whereas I saw many more ads for Yes, the largest ad I saw was a roadside No, roughly the canonical 3×6 meters.
I live in Norway, considered to have the highest tax level on earth. My tax percent is about 25%. Those myths about 50% tax rate are (sometimes deliberate) misconceptions about marginal tax rate. For instance, in Norway, income beyond about 60,000 dollars is taxed at an higher percent.
Given the record of support for Saddam Hussein, most southern-american dictatorships, the organization of the Escola de las Americas, arming the Contras in Nicaragua, frienship with the house of Saud, collaboration with the regime of Francisco Franco, and countless others (and I've kept myself to only a few over the last 50 years), your statement is laughable and is the result of overexposure to propaganda.
The US are pissed at Castro because he nationalized US-owned cuban industries, that US businessmen had bought or started by doing business with the corrupt regime of Batista. The same way, the UK was pissed at Iraq since a long time, since Iraq had nationalized assets of BP a few decades ago. Formerly-rich cubans in Florida are a resource of votes in a swing state. Cuba is a former ally of the Soviet Union and therefore adversary to the US, and its leadership is unwilling to let US interests in. Talking about freedom of speech in Cuba takes away the focus from the freedom of speech at home. Really, it's all about the money.
If there's a problem with US foreign policy, today as well as during the cold war, is that they rather protect American economic interests instead of what should be the American values (freedom of speech and the like, as you find them in the Constitution).
One of the nasty side effects is that economic or strategic short-term gain is often to the detriment of the long-term: the US financed Mujahedeens in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, only to find them bringing down the WTC in New York. They knew they were fundies, they only cared they were shooting Russians and local Communists; it should be obvious that if he's a wacko, you should not hand him guns.
Now, to take a leap: what is an example of a dictatorial regime currently sponsored by the US, that is full of fundie nuts? Well, that's Pakistan. Contrary to all previous situations, however, Pakistan has got nukes. If Musharraf ends like the Shah, we're in for some creepy times.
I was in Cuba in I think 1992, in the middle of the periodo especial, when western press reported of continuous power outages, no running water, oppressive policing. We (me and dad) were in a group of 8 tourists, and there was no VIP among us, so no chance they were polishing the country for us (though the tour guides obviously did not bring us to the worst conceivable places).
Facts observed:
Is Cuba a place that had the same leader for too long time? Granted. Is Cuba a place that has a low GNP, much lower than the US'? Granted too. Were the kangaroo trials on three men who tried to hijack a boat to the US and a few days later got executed a shame? Sure bet. Would Cuba be better off with socialism out and market economy in? I say, look at Haiti.
Lesson learnt: if it's about a country your country does not like, for any reason do not trust the information you get. No matter which country is yours and which the other. Either go and check for yourself, or simply guard your doubts.
Linucs, que lindo es Linucs
quien lo cómpila lo quiere mas!
In related news: Linus Torvalds' father was in the Communist party, did you know that?
(Judge) - Sideshow Bob, isn't it true that your homepage is titled "Die Microsoft Hellhounds"?
(Sideshow Bob) - Oh, it's German. It means "The Microsoft Hellhounds".
(Crowd) - No one who can speak German can be evil!
No, it's cubed. Drag force is squared with velocity, but power is force×velocity again. Since it's power that relates to kilometrage, the cubed figure is correct. I guess it depends on how you define "resistance".
Maybe they meant "smart-phone users", as users of "smart phones", indicating UMTS, Bluetooth or somehow advanced mobile phones that allow some form of virus. In the same article there are other two instances of usage of the phrase "smart phone".
I agree the 74% figure is total bull though, no matter the sample.
The point is not Giuliana Sgrena. She is not a weapons expert and I don't expect her tale to be accurate to the last technical detail, as the whole episode lasted only a few seconds and during these she probably thought of otherwise than writing the next story.
The point is an hostage being retrieved through a paid ransom.
- Insurgents kidnap Italian
- Italian government pays ransom
- Hostage is freed, resistance gets money
- Insurgents kidnap another Italian since the Italian government pays, go back to 1
Of course the US don't want more money going to the resistance, and do have a case in discouraging ransom payment; one of the ways of dealing with this might be "you can pay, but we are going to kill them before they board the plane anyway". It sounds far-fetched, but given the respect for non-US human life that the US administrations usually have (1 2 3 4 5), it is not impossible that sectors in the military would act thusly.It would otherwise be interesting to actually see those satellite pictures, not just a link by an American to an American news site quoting an American TV station about an American satellite.
And no, she did not like the US, nor did the experience much to improve her views. Same can be said for the majority of Italians.
Weird, now that you mention it that's a similar way they tried to kill Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam, making him drive through Victor Charlie land.
Anyway I was not suggesting this is the way things surely happened, I just pointed out that the fact the soldiers helped Sgrena and others out of the wreck does not mean someone set the stage for an accident waiting to happen.
They have removed it, it used to be at this link. I tried pdftotext on that one.
It's not necessary for the soldiers to knowingly be on a mission to murder her. If someone high up wanted Sgrena dead, they might have "forgotten" to tell the chek-point soldiers about the incoming car, expecting all of the occupants would have been killed by the soldiers. When the soldiers realised it was no suicide missions, they rescued the survivors from the wreck.
Download the pdf and run pdftotext on it, it works.
Marx was right: Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.
...Always at your service.
...You mean "free as in freedom" as opposed to "free as in wine"?
About this Chicago-boys stereotype that lower taxes increase productivity, I'd like to point out that in the bar next door (a major source of wisdom in advanced microeconomics), when the government raises taxes I hear people saying "Dammit, they raised taxes... this year I have to work two weeks more to pay the mortgage!". I never hear "dammit, they raised taxes... I feel demotivated, I think I'll quit my job".
Conversely, when the government lowers taxes, I hear "Wow! This year I'm taking a month's vacation in Tahiti, to hell with the job!", and not "Wow, I'm so motivated I'll work every Sunday now!".
These findings in Laffer-&-Co. style are based on the utterly false premise that people are greedy and only want to maximise their income; this makes calculations easy, but conclusions are likely as false as the assumption. Some people are greedy, but most people just want to earn enough to get along. Only insane workaholics prefer more money in the bank than spending quality time with their family or doing what they like to do (if their main interest is work and they would do it even unpaid is a special case).
Say what you want, but it's interesting to note that the current buzzspots are aligned exactly along the main East-West axis in Eurasia (from China to Europe) as indicated by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel.
In Italy we have a saying - made the law, found the scam.
Without this "bizarre" law, Mr. Burns could create a daughter company ("Homer Simpson Ltd."), make Homer Simpson CEO of that one-man company (Woohoo!), and "friendly agree" that Homer Simpson Ltd. will maintain its job (pardon, contract) at the power plant accepting a monthly payment well below the minimum wage (Doh!).
In Italy we still have a similar situation when it comes to fire employees: companies with less than 15 employees have a much easier time firing people, especially because litigation possibilities are limited for the fired guy: in larger companies the guy can request reintegration in the company if the layoff was not justified, in smaller ones he can get at most money. As a result, many large companies are split in 15-employee blocks.
The Economist is the same magazine that supported Bjørn Lomborg, thereby proving their utter incompetence in environmental science. They defended him in spite of clear and very detailed indications from the scientific environment that he was nuts.
I suppose they will know economics when they talk about it, but they demonstrated an inappropriate habit of pontificating on things they don't have a clue about. I for one think they burned a lot of karma.
BS! You can't see the map (grayed out), but you can turn on the satellite - and it's visible! I for one see clearly an airfield (looks abandoned, yet there is a plane in the middle of the airstrip, and some vehicles that look like trucks).
I really wonder wh###CARRIER LOST
No, this is no April fools stuff. The Pope is dying in Italy and no newspaper is in the mood of a joke. Furthermore newspapers do not have the habit of pranking around just because it's April 1 anyway.
By the way, the problem is that, when Berlusconi does something illegal, it is made legal as soon as the trial approaches. This was done for account tampering, TV station ownership limits, and corruption in judiciary proceedings, and probably other things I don't remember right now - so Rfid tracking might become legal at some point in Italy. As Daniele Luttazzi put it, "let's hope he has a joint soon".
You mean the socialist in this picture?
Quite impressive that some people still believe that buffoon Lomborg. Here is the usual website by Kåre Fog, with all the errors (pretty word for "lies") of Lomborg exposed.
This example is quite nice: in order to demonstrate that forest area is not only stable, but even increasing, in spite of all deforestation environmentalist litany along about, Lomborg has used statistics taken from a time when countries were still joining the FAO - as a result, looking at his data, all the Borneo forest appears from nothing in 1961. Never mind that FAO (Lomborg's source) published a corrected data set, that clearly shows the decline, before Lomborg's book in English edition.
As a side note: I have not seen that many articles by Lomborg in the scientific literature. In fact, according to his own website, he's published one peer-reviewed article only once, and not about environment (and I did not personally check whether it exists really, it would not be the first time the guy lies). A scientist who tries to dodge peer review by printing books instead of submitting articles is most likely just a charlatan and a snake-oil salesman. The Skeptical Environmentalist can quietly join cold fusion in the drawer of junk science.
You're full of taurine excrements.
I'm fed up with this bullshit about evolution being "not proven". It is proven and is solid like a T-34 shell. As in every branch of science it's a large patchwork, it may require refining, adjustments, interpretations, contributions, but there is no way the world was created from a space fart by some nutty long-bearded prick. Dammit, genetic algorithms are regularly used in mathematics! What other proof do you morons need to understand that it works?
And I'm puzzled why the creationist nuts don't use the most obvious argument against evolution: Americans are getting dumber and dumber.
[Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq] We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
[Secretary of State Madeleine Albright] I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Seems to me you are deluding yourself with the good old "we-are-the-good-guys" rethorics. About the Iran-Iraq war, it was started by Saddam Hussein (guess who backed him), not by the fundamentalists. And no, you won't find a (reasonable) islamic minister that cheers at the sight of gruesome civilian deaths either, but it's the unreasonable ones that make it into the news.
The current morale that forbids religious leaders from cheering to the sight of dead enemies is only recent, and maybe temporary. Only few decades ago, it was common for religious leaders to support racial segregation, discrimination and persecution; many WW2 criminals fled to South America with the help of the Vatican, and even current high-ranking cardinals have been in good terms with bloody dictators as Pinochet of Chile or Videla of Argentina. The Vatican excommunicated communists, but I never heard such a staunch opposition of South African apartheid.
In short, you seem to look only at what reassures you that "we are the good guys". I say that no matter what religion you pick, it's always an Inherently Evil Thing(tm) to ideologically assume that proposition X is true.