Good arguments all around - just a little different philosophy I think.
The "Just War" doctrine is in my mind oxymoronic. Morality, in my opinion, is at odds with warfare, and therefore a war can never be just.
Remember the old adage "The pen is mightier than the sword"? The failure to exhaust the options of diplomacy, strike that, the complete rejection of attempting diplomatic solutions to the conflict we now find ourselves in is a reprehensible condition that many minds reject.
Perhaps the best argument I have read in this vein is that of Howard Zinn, who believes that we are confusing "Just Cause" with "Just War".
I think his prediction of a proliferation of terrorism is unfortunately eerily accurate. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
I'm also interested in your pessimistic (no offence intended) outlook on conflict. I hold (perhaps an unhealthy) optimism for peaceful solutions to conflict.
While not a strong pacifist, I hold that nation states can indeed do a much better job of conflict resolution. Perhaps our failure recently has it's roots in our violent culture back at home.
I know I'm rambling a bit here, but just one more point. There is a system of governance that would produce a much more peaceful world should man choose to try it. That system has been called Anarchy (not to be confused with chaos) by some, Democratic Socialism by others, but I prefer to use the less charged, but equally accurate term Direct Democracy. A good place to start if you are interested is one of the many accounts of the Spanish Civil War (George Orwell's is a good one).
kaladorn, you address some really good points. I'm sure you have a lot of insight into the world at large, so I'm certain you'll recall the fact that the US used nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan, not only once, but twice - a practice that is, was, and forever will be thought of as an abhorrible crime against man.
As to the vitriolic rhetoric of the left and right in this country, I would offer these words of caution:
There is a misconception, perpetuated by the media, that there are only two viewpoints on any issue. That is blatantly not the case in America. I identify with neither party, as is the case with 24 percent of us.
That taken care of, the topic of preemptive or supposedly corrective warfare is an interesting one. The concept wouldn't be that bad, excepting for the moral questions involved. Questions like "who decides who is evil?" and "what type of government is correct?".
These questions will always lead to debate and different conclusions. Mine is that the moral high ground required to decide others destiny is inherently immoral itself.
Another question for those who support the role of world cop - how many successful examples are there of countries rising from this practice? Excluding the two WWII examples (and one could argue that they are special examples outside of the question at hand), I can think of none.
What I do know is that Iraq, however bad it was before we invaded the last time, was a secular state with a regionally unparalleled equality for women. Today Iraq is threateningly close to being an oppressive theocracy, much like it's neighbor Iran. Women have lost their social status and now wear facial coverings in public out of fear.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that the only way viable self-rule can happen is through popular support and revolution against oppressors. Forcing others to reform their governments is undemocratic.
If you can't see that, there's not much to discuss, unfortunately.
That's sad in my opinion.
I hope you would agree that the US has used WMD in a much more lethal and inhuman way than any other state. Giving any country an outright pass is wrongheaded.
This comment is so rich. I can only spend a little time on it, but here's a shot:
First, let's talk about references. When I say something like x is due to y, I like to back it up with something like according to z(www.z.com), you get the picture.
Now the "Germany KNOWS that Saddam did have WMD" statement sounds a little overstated - I would assume you are referring to international findings of that nature and not the Germans in particular?
On that note, almost every country has WMD right now. I think that makes the WMD case for war a bit daft, but that's just a personal opinion.
I'm at a bit of a loss on this statement: "Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records"
Let's try CNN on this one. Looks like they were destroying them right up to the war.
Here's another idea I take issue with: "it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information"
The question I have here is why, after over a year, have we still seen none of this come to fruition? Sure, we handed over power, but to an unelected government that we selected. Also, how did we contribute to the free flow of information by banning newspapers?
You go on to insist that this was somehow was positive for "most of the civilized world", but offer no rational for that logic. I think it's much safer to assume that the real winners here are defence contractorstied to the Whitehouse
"People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people..." Please don't talk about the actions of the state as the actions of the US. I'm a part of this great country, and like many others, I consider this war a shameful crime against humanity.
Its replacement also isn't scheduled to go up for another 7 years...
So why not push this project a bit more? I'm all for not rushing things, but surely there are priority considerations that could be improved here.
...And doesn't factor in the cost to get it up there yet. Or the labour to build the thing. Or the cost of fixing it when the inevitable problems crop up.
Are you sure? What costs would you assume are in that number, just design costs? I don't see a break down, so my assumption is that is a mission cost estimate.
Coming from a guy named "Bishop", I'll take it with a large grain of salt. Or should that be a glass or two of wine?
Either way, I'll knock a couple back for ya next time I'm at the pub.
You're not gonna like this idea...
on
Sleeping Problems?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
but it may be worth trying.
Years ago, I had an extended bout with insomnia, and the only thing that cured it was a career change.
Often, sleep loss coincides with stress, and that typically is job related. Even going on vacation doesn't tend to help due to the fact that you still think about work (at least in the sub-conscious.)
At the time, I was sleeping maybe 3-4 hours a night, and I had no idea what was causing it. On the advice of a professional, I tried another industry, and found that my sleep pattern improved almost over-night (no pun intended.)
A comet or large asteroid could pull Venus' ejectae and send it into a higher or irregular orbit that could eventually cross paths with earth.
Not to be mean, but pigs could fly too. Really, the chances of this are really quite slim. I don't have the data set to prove it, but I'd expect the probability of Venus originated meteorites in the once-in-a-billion-year range or so.
In fact, there is a large list of Martian matter found on earth, but there has never been a meteor found from another planet.
My guess is the layout of the solar system is at fault here. Our neighbors to the inner solar system are at a gravitational disadvantage, and those outside of Mars are simply too large to have meaningful ejections until you get to Pluto, but it's so far away and so small that the chances are really small there as well.
Maybe the concept is not "made up", but the way it's used is really misleading. i.e. how do you decide when to stop measuring TCO? Is the cost of a technology switch 10 years from now part of the picture? How about a potential patent fight?
Then we move into the world of cost estimation. What is your employee's time really worth? Do they spend more time managing the interface of this app verses that app?
The reality is that it is impossible to accurately guess what your TCO will be until you have tried the product in a large deployment in your environment.
So while not made up, the term is indeed less than useful. Mostly, it appears to be used to justify using antiquated and mainstream solutions.
if all rocks of earth origin contain bacteria and rocks from Mars can reach earth I would *expect* that life had travelled from earth to Mars via the same mechanism in reverse.
I don't understand this logic. Mars is at a larger orbital plane than Earth. Wouldn't the logical assumption be that some object jettisoned from Mars could intersect Earth's orbit? The other direction seems a bit far-fetched.
Slashdot Mirror
the facts are biased against bush.
So, what's that make them, 1 for 20?
There's a valid point of view that says one step forward does not make up for two steps back.
Good arguments all around - just a little different philosophy I think.
The "Just War" doctrine is in my mind oxymoronic. Morality, in my opinion, is at odds with warfare, and therefore a war can never be just.
Remember the old adage "The pen is mightier than the sword"? The failure to exhaust the options of diplomacy, strike that, the complete rejection of attempting diplomatic solutions to the conflict we now find ourselves in is a reprehensible condition that many minds reject.
Perhaps the best argument I have read in this vein is that of Howard Zinn, who believes that we are confusing "Just Cause" with "Just War".
I think his prediction of a proliferation of terrorism is unfortunately eerily accurate. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
I'm also interested in your pessimistic (no offence intended) outlook on conflict. I hold (perhaps an unhealthy) optimism for peaceful solutions to conflict.
While not a strong pacifist, I hold that nation states can indeed do a much better job of conflict resolution. Perhaps our failure recently has it's roots in our violent culture back at home.
I know I'm rambling a bit here, but just one more point. There is a system of governance that would produce a much more peaceful world should man choose to try it. That system has been called Anarchy (not to be confused with chaos) by some, Democratic Socialism by others, but I prefer to use the less charged, but equally accurate term Direct Democracy. A good place to start if you are interested is one of the many accounts of the Spanish Civil War (George Orwell's is a good one).
kaladorn, you address some really good points. I'm sure you have a lot of insight into the world at large, so I'm certain you'll recall the fact that the US used nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan, not only once, but twice - a practice that is, was, and forever will be thought of as an abhorrible crime against man.
As to the vitriolic rhetoric of the left and right in this country, I would offer these words of caution:
There is a misconception, perpetuated by the media, that there are only two viewpoints on any issue. That is blatantly not the case in America. I identify with neither party, as is the case with 24 percent of us.
That taken care of, the topic of preemptive or supposedly corrective warfare is an interesting one. The concept wouldn't be that bad, excepting for the moral questions involved. Questions like "who decides who is evil?" and "what type of government is correct?".
These questions will always lead to debate and different conclusions. Mine is that the moral high ground required to decide others destiny is inherently immoral itself.
Another question for those who support the role of world cop - how many successful examples are there of countries rising from this practice? Excluding the two WWII examples (and one could argue that they are special examples outside of the question at hand), I can think of none.
What I do know is that Iraq, however bad it was before we invaded the last time, was a secular state with a regionally unparalleled equality for women. Today Iraq is threateningly close to being an oppressive theocracy, much like it's neighbor Iran. Women have lost their social status and now wear facial coverings in public out of fear.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that the only way viable self-rule can happen is through popular support and revolution against oppressors. Forcing others to reform their governments is undemocratic.
If you can't see that, there's not much to discuss, unfortunately.
That's sad in my opinion.
I hope you would agree that the US has used WMD in a much more lethal and inhuman way than any other state. Giving any country an outright pass is wrongheaded.
This comment is so rich. I can only spend a little time on it, but here's a shot:
First, let's talk about references. When I say something like x is due to y, I like to back it up with something like according to z(www.z.com), you get the picture.
Now the "Germany KNOWS that Saddam did have WMD" statement sounds a little overstated - I would assume you are referring to international findings of that nature and not the Germans in particular?
On that note, almost every country has WMD right now. I think that makes the WMD case for war a bit daft, but that's just a personal opinion.
I'm at a bit of a loss on this statement:
"Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records"
Let's try CNN on this one. Looks like they were destroying them right up to the war.
Here's another idea I take issue with:
"it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information"
The question I have here is why, after over a year, have we still seen none of this come to fruition? Sure, we handed over power, but to an unelected government that we selected. Also, how did we contribute to the free flow of information by banning newspapers?
You go on to insist that this was somehow was positive for "most of the civilized world", but offer no rational for that logic. I think it's much safer to assume that the real winners here are defence contractors tied to the Whitehouse
"People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people..." Please don't talk about the actions of the state as the actions of the US. I'm a part of this great country, and like many others, I consider this war a shameful crime against humanity.
There is an 802.11i, so I'd go for 802.11b/i/n/g/o.
Or, if you like, another ugly theme or 2.
Its replacement also isn't scheduled to go up for another 7 years...
...And doesn't factor in the cost to get it up there yet. Or the labour to build the thing. Or the cost of fixing it when the inevitable problems crop up.
So why not push this project a bit more? I'm all for not rushing things, but surely there are priority considerations that could be improved here.
Are you sure? What costs would you assume are in that number, just design costs? I don't see a break down, so my assumption is that is a mission cost estimate.
Also, lets look at the JWST FAQ to get some more cost details:
" JWST is projected to cost one-fourth to one-third the cost of Hubble, one of the most successful science instruments ever, yet JWST will be more capable than Hubble in many ways. The JWST will realize these cost savings primarily through advanced technology. JWST has a shorter lifetime, and since it will not be serviced in space, there are no costs for servicing. "
So, no, there will not be costly service missions. Kind of hard to service something at the second Lagrange point.
I'll give you a freaking break right away.
You must feel sooo cool.
I'm just happy that they decided not to ditch the Hubble.
Ditching it may be stupid, but this is crazy. 1.6 billion for what? It's replacement is only slated to cost $824.8 million
Gimmy a freaking break.
a gigabit 128 megabytes
If you are getting 145 megabytes / second, that's damn good.
"I'm rich, biatch!"
Coming from a guy named "Bishop", I'll take it with a large grain of salt. Or should that be a glass or two of wine?
Either way, I'll knock a couple back for ya next time I'm at the pub.
but it may be worth trying.
Years ago, I had an extended bout with insomnia, and the only thing that cured it was a career change.
Often, sleep loss coincides with stress, and that typically is job related. Even going on vacation doesn't tend to help due to the fact that you still think about work (at least in the sub-conscious.)
At the time, I was sleeping maybe 3-4 hours a night, and I had no idea what was causing it. On the advice of a professional, I tried another industry, and found that my sleep pattern improved almost over-night (no pun intended.)
Martian meteors on the other hand happen quite regularly.
In fact, there is a large list of Martian matter found on earth, but there has never been a meteor found from another planet.
My guess is the layout of the solar system is at fault here. Our neighbors to the inner solar system are at a gravitational disadvantage, and those outside of Mars are simply too large to have meaningful ejections until you get to Pluto, but it's so far away and so small that the chances are really small there as well.
Remember folks, launching stuff into a much higher orbit requires lots of energy.
The reason Mars rocks get here is because they are intercepted on their way to the sun.
Maybe the concept is not "made up", but the way it's used is really misleading. i.e. how do you decide when to stop measuring TCO? Is the cost of a technology switch 10 years from now part of the picture? How about a potential patent fight?
Then we move into the world of cost estimation. What is your employee's time really worth? Do they spend more time managing the interface of this app verses that app? The reality is that it is impossible to accurately guess what your TCO will be until you have tried the product in a large deployment in your environment.
So while not made up, the term is indeed less than useful. Mostly, it appears to be used to justify using antiquated and mainstream solutions.
Is that better? I swear I closed the tag, but accidents happen to everyone.
:)
Accidents happen? Nope. Not to grammar nazi's
Juice by you.
Needs. More. Cowbell.
0.60345994 HP to be exact :)
5th in the Hall of Fame.
Try the Spanish Civil War