The comment "I think for a living" was based on a misconception. In the United States, soldiers are expected to be able to think on their feet. But that still doesn't mean that everyone is suited to be a soldier. What Rupert was probably trying to get at is that he is someone who doesn't take orders well or doesn't do well in an environment as structured as the military. That lifestyle just isn't for some people. My instructor for ROTC was even willing to admit that.
I think that was a reference to the first Bush administration and the invasion that started the Gulf War. Though I know some who would interpret the comment with a more current context.
Bush and Ashcroft have proposed some policies that would seem to violate the Constitution. Secret milliary tribunals ring a bell? Not exactly condusive to the right to a fair trial. Some would claim the treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray violates the Constitution as well. And Ashcroft's little comment about how those who speak out against Bush are helping the terrorists? Not to mention many of the more rescent examples under the guise of national security. Read the Constitution and the newspaper, then try and tell me Bush is doing a good job protecting the Constitution.
American soldiers have been involved in atrocitied. Sometimes the soldiers didn't know who they were killing and were merely following orders. Other times, the soldiers have just been bad people. More often the solders have sought to protect women and children. More often those the soldiers shoot are enemy combatants and those who wish to bring harm to the United States and our allies.
True freedom is somewhat nebulous. That doesn't mean its not worth dying for. Try reading some books like 1984, A Handmaid's Tale or Farenheit 451 and tell me that there's nothing about freedom worth dying for.
When one trains for barracks and uniform inspections, you learn to be aware of countless, tiny bits of information. That skill can be invaluable in the battlefield. Those tiny details are what keep planes, parachutes, weapons, and other tools of the trade working properly. Something very slight could suggest an enemy position and help save the live of your flight. Don't underestimate the importance of attention to detail.
The military does have to do as the president orders. If I remember correctly, the president can deploy armed forces, but must inform congress within 30 days. Congress then has to approve of the president's actions within 60 days or the troops must be withdrawn. I know that's the general idea, but I can't garauntee the specifics are all correct.
I'm in officer training for the US Air Force, and let me tell you, they make sure the folks in charge know what they're doing. Your average enlisted man may not always be the best educated, but the officers know their field backwards and forwards. Even the ROTC cadets, who don't join until they have a bachelor's degree, will end up going to as much as a year of additional Air Force training specificially for their field. Dealing with difficult situations and thinking on your feet is an essential part of officer training. The high school dropout may not always be able to handle it when the technology fails, but there will be someone there who can keep things rolling.
Advertising seems to help a movie when it first comes out. But what does that have to do with its longevity? A story that endures does so because the story draws us in, just as JonKatz said. Think of a movie like "Armageddon". It was a huge hit at the box office because it had a huge amount of advertising. However, it lacked the elements that have kept tales like "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" (the books) around as long as they have been. The power of myth is what has made those stories appeal to generation after generation and is what has kept them alive. Advertising will only help a movie on opening weekend. After that, the story it tells becomes important.
I think you are exactly right about this. Cutting part of a film, even a tiny part, just so that more people will see it, is giving in to marketing. After all, you have to draw the line somewhere. This isn't exactly the first symptom we've seen of Lucas being worried about money before the film, either. I'm sure all of you heard about the plan to put N*Sync into the movie. Plus, anyone who would sink to the level of creating Jar Jar Binks just to appeal to a "younger audience" has fallen slave to the almighty dollar.
So what does NASA do? NASA, my friend does pleanty. You would be missing out on more than Tang and teflon of not for them.
NASA has done a lot of good for private industry. Who do you suppose laid the groundwork for the satellites that allow celluar phones, wireless internet, and GPS. The goals tend to be very practical ones that end up being put to use in the private sector.
Also, NASA does a lot for the DOD. Spy satellites and other important technology are possible thanks to them. I may be wrong here, but I think at least some of what NASA does is top-secret since the DOD gets first dibs on it.
As a physics major, what I consider the most important part of what NASA does the contributions it has made to pure science. HST (Hubble Space Telescope) has been one of the most mocked endeavors of NASA. Due to the difficulty of making a lens as precise as HST needed, it was no surprise that the first images were blurry. The repair was fairly simple, and once completed, provided some of the most spectacular astronomy since Gallileo first looked skyward. NASA could play a role in other upcoming projects that may include a search for gravity waves, the final proof of Relativity. The experiments that have been done on shuttle missions, MIR, those slated to be done in space, and their contirubutions to science are invaluable.
I would like to point out, by the way, that since NASA relies almost entirely on public funding, they often publicize most the acheivements that will strike the interest of the most people. After all, are more people going to be excited about an orbital interferometer (perhaps one of the most scientifically valueable missions possible) or a mission to Mars?
First, I'd just like to note that the idea of a social contract is primarily from Locke and Hobbes, not Socrates.
Now to the interesting parts...
To address point 1, it takes time and effort to determine which aid is poorly performing and which aid is effective. How many people have actually tried to find out where the cash they send to various organizations actually goes? Granted, there are people out there who do look into where their gifts go. There are also many others who simply don't give the effort.
The government is not perfect, but does have a number of watchdog programs to monitor the success of various programs. With programs such as welfare, they constantly try to improve the success. With programs such as NASA, they seek adjusted goals to make it more worthwhile.
Points two and three seem related to me. Basically, we pay our taxes and feel like we did something worthwhile. Pleanty of people seem to go out and do good in spite of taxes. I would like to point out, however, that at times it is difficult to find ways to volunteer. Only a year ago, I was working with a Key Club at a local high school. We had a surprising amount of difficulty finding places willing to let us volunteer. There were even many times when we had set up volunteer opporunities ahead of time, specified the number of people, and so on, only to get a call that day telling us not to show up, or worse, showing up and being told there was nothing we could do. To be honest, I'm not sure how to fix it, but I beleive there are people out there who would like to help, if only it weren't so difficult at times to do so.
As for point 4, taxes are neccessary. Something must pay for roads, public buildings, and so on. The public seems to demand more and more programs and more and more spending by the government, and that means more taxes. We cry for more better education, better roads, universal health care, and so on, but whine when taxes are raised to pay the cost. I think that the expenditures are worthwhile, but if you don't, then vote for candidates that agree with you on that. Write to your representatives and let them know what you think. Quit demanding things that cost money.
Rather than cut spending to important programs, perhaps a better fix for this is to make sure that the minimum wage keeps up with inflation and tax increases. This still leaves the problem of finding jobs, but the fix for that is complicated and I'm not sure what I have to say on that.
Taxes aren't perfect, but they aren't evil either.
Of course employees are the biggest security threat, and its not just because of technology! Do they really think that there are sensitive things that can't just be printed out or copied onto a piece of paper and shoved into a pocket?
Is capitalism any less of an experiment than socialism? Yes, its great in theory. But what about the worker? Well, in theory, a happy worker is more productive, so an employer will take care of the workers. Also, an employer with a reputation for treating workers fairly and with respect, will have a larger pool to hire from. Unfortunatly, things don't work like that. Unions aren't perfect, but they do give the common worker the means to improve their working conditions. It seems that our current system, blending parts of capitalism and socialism, is about as good as we can do. Maybe eventually someone will come up with a way to protect worker's rights and protect capitalist ideals, but until then, I think we need unions.
Slashdot Mirror
The comment "I think for a living" was based on a misconception. In the United States, soldiers are expected to be able to think on their feet. But that still doesn't mean that everyone is suited to be a soldier. What Rupert was probably trying to get at is that he is someone who doesn't take orders well or doesn't do well in an environment as structured as the military. That lifestyle just isn't for some people. My instructor for ROTC was even willing to admit that.
I think that was a reference to the first Bush administration and the invasion that started the Gulf War. Though I know some who would interpret the comment with a more current context.
Bush and Ashcroft have proposed some policies that would seem to violate the Constitution. Secret milliary tribunals ring a bell? Not exactly condusive to the right to a fair trial. Some would claim the treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray violates the Constitution as well. And Ashcroft's little comment about how those who speak out against Bush are helping the terrorists? Not to mention many of the more rescent examples under the guise of national security. Read the Constitution and the newspaper, then try and tell me Bush is doing a good job protecting the Constitution.
Where do you order a copy?
American soldiers have been involved in atrocitied. Sometimes the soldiers didn't know who they were killing and were merely following orders. Other times, the soldiers have just been bad people. More often the solders have sought to protect women and children. More often those the soldiers shoot are enemy combatants and those who wish to bring harm to the United States and our allies.
True freedom is somewhat nebulous. That doesn't mean its not worth dying for. Try reading some books like 1984, A Handmaid's Tale or Farenheit 451 and tell me that there's nothing about freedom worth dying for.
Here here! Just like to point out that the Air Force has a major command dedicated to air support so the USMC aren't the only ones doing that.
When one trains for barracks and uniform inspections, you learn to be aware of countless, tiny bits of information. That skill can be invaluable in the battlefield. Those tiny details are what keep planes, parachutes, weapons, and other tools of the trade working properly. Something very slight could suggest an enemy position and help save the live of your flight. Don't underestimate the importance of attention to detail.
The military does have to do as the president orders. If I remember correctly, the president can deploy armed forces, but must inform congress within 30 days. Congress then has to approve of the president's actions within 60 days or the troops must be withdrawn. I know that's the general idea, but I can't garauntee the specifics are all correct.
I'm in officer training for the US Air Force, and let me tell you, they make sure the folks in charge know what they're doing. Your average enlisted man may not always be the best educated, but the officers know their field backwards and forwards. Even the ROTC cadets, who don't join until they have a bachelor's degree, will end up going to as much as a year of additional Air Force training specificially for their field. Dealing with difficult situations and thinking on your feet is an essential part of officer training. The high school dropout may not always be able to handle it when the technology fails, but there will be someone there who can keep things rolling.
There's a big difference between prefect and perfect. Ford Prefects used to be very popular in England.
Advertising seems to help a movie when it first comes out. But what does that have to do with its longevity? A story that endures does so because the story draws us in, just as JonKatz said. Think of a movie like "Armageddon". It was a huge hit at the box office because it had a huge amount of advertising. However, it lacked the elements that have kept tales like "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" (the books) around as long as they have been. The power of myth is what has made those stories appeal to generation after generation and is what has kept them alive. Advertising will only help a movie on opening weekend. After that, the story it tells becomes important.
I think you are exactly right about this. Cutting part of a film, even a tiny part, just so that more people will see it, is giving in to marketing. After all, you have to draw the line somewhere. This isn't exactly the first symptom we've seen of Lucas being worried about money before the film, either. I'm sure all of you heard about the plan to put N*Sync into the movie. Plus, anyone who would sink to the level of creating Jar Jar Binks just to appeal to a "younger audience" has fallen slave to the almighty dollar.
So what does NASA do?
NASA, my friend does pleanty. You would be missing out on more than Tang and teflon of not for them.
NASA has done a lot of good for private industry. Who do you suppose laid the groundwork for the satellites that allow celluar phones, wireless internet, and GPS. The goals tend to be very practical ones that end up being put to use in the private sector.
Also, NASA does a lot for the DOD. Spy satellites and other important technology are possible thanks to them. I may be wrong here, but I think at least some of what NASA does is top-secret since the DOD gets first dibs on it.
As a physics major, what I consider the most important part of what NASA does the contributions it has made to pure science. HST (Hubble Space Telescope) has been one of the most mocked endeavors of NASA. Due to the difficulty of making a lens as precise as HST needed, it was no surprise that the first images were blurry. The repair was fairly simple, and once completed, provided some of the most spectacular astronomy since Gallileo first looked skyward. NASA could play a role in other upcoming projects that may include a search for gravity waves, the final proof of Relativity. The experiments that have been done on shuttle missions, MIR, those slated to be done in space, and their contirubutions to science are invaluable.
I would like to point out, by the way, that since NASA relies almost entirely on public funding, they often publicize most the acheivements that will strike the interest of the most people. After all, are more people going to be excited about an orbital interferometer (perhaps one of the most scientifically valueable missions possible) or a mission to Mars?
First, I'd just like to note that the idea of a social contract is primarily from Locke and Hobbes, not Socrates. Now to the interesting parts... To address point 1, it takes time and effort to determine which aid is poorly performing and which aid is effective. How many people have actually tried to find out where the cash they send to various organizations actually goes? Granted, there are people out there who do look into where their gifts go. There are also many others who simply don't give the effort. The government is not perfect, but does have a number of watchdog programs to monitor the success of various programs. With programs such as welfare, they constantly try to improve the success. With programs such as NASA, they seek adjusted goals to make it more worthwhile. Points two and three seem related to me. Basically, we pay our taxes and feel like we did something worthwhile. Pleanty of people seem to go out and do good in spite of taxes. I would like to point out, however, that at times it is difficult to find ways to volunteer. Only a year ago, I was working with a Key Club at a local high school. We had a surprising amount of difficulty finding places willing to let us volunteer. There were even many times when we had set up volunteer opporunities ahead of time, specified the number of people, and so on, only to get a call that day telling us not to show up, or worse, showing up and being told there was nothing we could do. To be honest, I'm not sure how to fix it, but I beleive there are people out there who would like to help, if only it weren't so difficult at times to do so. As for point 4, taxes are neccessary. Something must pay for roads, public buildings, and so on. The public seems to demand more and more programs and more and more spending by the government, and that means more taxes. We cry for more better education, better roads, universal health care, and so on, but whine when taxes are raised to pay the cost. I think that the expenditures are worthwhile, but if you don't, then vote for candidates that agree with you on that. Write to your representatives and let them know what you think. Quit demanding things that cost money. Rather than cut spending to important programs, perhaps a better fix for this is to make sure that the minimum wage keeps up with inflation and tax increases. This still leaves the problem of finding jobs, but the fix for that is complicated and I'm not sure what I have to say on that. Taxes aren't perfect, but they aren't evil either.
Of course employees are the biggest security threat, and its not just because of technology! Do they really think that there are sensitive things that can't just be printed out or copied onto a piece of paper and shoved into a pocket?
Is capitalism any less of an experiment than socialism? Yes, its great in theory. But what about the worker? Well, in theory, a happy worker is more productive, so an employer will take care of the workers. Also, an employer with a reputation for treating workers fairly and with respect, will have a larger pool to hire from. Unfortunatly, things don't work like that. Unions aren't perfect, but they do give the common worker the means to improve their working conditions. It seems that our current system, blending parts of capitalism and socialism, is about as good as we can do. Maybe eventually someone will come up with a way to protect worker's rights and protect capitalist ideals, but until then, I think we need unions.