The military wants people to adapt to the orders given. They do not however want them to analyze the motives for the war in the first place. That would lead to insubordination. They want an officer to say "these orders tell us to go through this huge enemy camp in order to make this supply delivery. I'm gonna disobey orders and go around the camp so that we are all alive to make the delivery". They do not want the officer to say "How does carpet bombing this mostly civilian region help those civilians again?"
Which "great dictators"? Name a dictator that had an effective army full of mindless, uneducated "drones". Name an effective army that wasn't backed by a solid educational system. Killing teachers is a move to solidify a political position, not to create an ignorant pool of cannon fodder.
Well the obvious response of hittler come to mind. He was not great in his vision for the world, but the Nazi's sure were great at controlling public opinion through intense propaganda machines. The people's intense political position helped hittler go on a huge killing spree. His army worked pretty well because the people in the army did not question the motives for going to war. The Nazi army was very effective at killing because they did not question their orders' motives. I'm sure they were educated enough to make smart tactical decisions.
Teaching an army about moral behavior does not help the military kill people. Militarys have varying goals, but the means are always the same: killing people. Whether the military is there to secure the peace, liberate or save it's people, push back invaders... the means of the military remain the same. Force (killing).
In regard to the military looking down on D&D players, I don't really care. Maybe D&D players make bad killers.
I really hope the US military rejects people that play D&D. That would be great. That way if there is a draft I can say "I play D&D" instead of lying and telling them I'm gay. Come on US military... D&D is EVIL. Paper + dice = worst soldiers ever.
Well I agree that the fish rots from the head down. The blame unfortunately falls from the tail up in today's corporate culture. "The product didn't work! Fire the engineer and give a raise to the boss." or "The boss destroyed the company. Give her a huge severance package and let her lead the world bank."
Any references to actual people are totally on accident.
Unfortunately the lack of an airport driver is the main reason I have not gone with Linux on my Mac. I prefer a 100% open source operating system instead of apple's open source darwin/closed source aqua. That and I can't check homestarrunner.com cause there's no open source flash viewer and macromedia won't release ppc closed source compatible version.
Actually that's an interesting thought experiment. If the Chinese has a monopoly on desktop software, the US government would probably invest in open source software way more than they do now. You would have a lot more people trying to compete with the monopoly instead of giving in to it's dominance. More competition more jobs, more economic diversity.
If Microsoft was based out of say Britain then I don't think the government would care as much. That would financially be the worst for the US.
Even if your original post is all about Microsoft's contribution to the financial state of the US, the position that it is priceless is unfounded. Microsoft IS a financial liability to the US. They constantly push other companies out of the marketplace. Netscape and Sun are two large companies that were hurt by Microsoft. There are hundreds of small businesses that do not have the access to the kind of money to sue Microsoft for their various illegal activities. Those small businesses must shut down I am therefore of the opinion that Microsoft IS a liability to the financial well being of the US as well as a moral liability.
saying:
"having the largest, most important software company in the world in your country is priceless" means that it is worth more than can be expressed in dollar amounts to have a monopoly operating in your country. That's what you said.
"Gates has obviously profited from some dubious business, but he has also given tons back to the US through taxes, employment, and extending the anglo-american cultural heritage in the western world by keeping the control of the single most important piece of software in the world in the US."
Reading this sounds like a rationalization for dubious business practices.
Those are two places where it sounds like you think what bill and Microsoft has done is ok. The first one even sounds better than ok. It sounds quite positive.
"Now, if you could please tell me how that makes me say that I think anything is OK, I would be thrilled."
You should be extra thrilled now.
Debating whether Jesus did what he did, or whether the documents that describe his actions are authentic is an interesting topic. It is however completely Irrelavant to the idea of Christianity. Jesus wanted to spread love and get other people to do the same. "treat others as you would yourself" and whatnot. If people do that then I think they have figured out the Christianity that the person named Jesus envisioned. Understanding his existence is a moot point as long as you understand his message.
I don't really care how authentic the bible is. If someone picks the bible up. Reads it. Then decided that the things Jesus did are great and that they would like to do great things then I mark that as 1 point for Jesus. If Jesus is able to get people to understand and love one another then I say he's ok in my book.
I even think that other religions that ask for the same love towards our common man that Jesus talks about, are working toward what god intended with Jesus.
Religions that preach hate in the name of god are preaching contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. God Hates Fags... I'm looking at you.
From a historical perspective, learning about how the bible came about is fascinating. From a religious standpoint understanding where the gospel comes from doesn't really matter. Understanding that the bible says you need to love and respect your common man is religiously paramount.
With the same logic only exaggerated in order to exaggerate my point:
A person can:
1. Underhandedly obtain money (lets go with armed robbery to spice things up)
2. Donate a 1/10th of it to fight aids in Africa
3. Smile since they are morally in the clear because of 2.
4. Repeat
5. Profit! From 1. (only added this cause it's slashdot)
Anyhow. I guess my point is that if I rob you and then donate half the money I steal from you, it doesn't make me a morally good person. I guess that just proves that knighthood doesn't mean much.
I know how much the slashot community loves to hate Bill Gates (and I admit, it can be fun from time to time), but this man has pushed more small businesses out of the market than EVERY SINGLE one of us combined will in our lives.
Sure, he has the money and we don't, but it is easy to say that if you were a billionaire, you would be crushing small businesses, it's probably harder to actually do. Let's give this man some credit where credit is due, he is doing phenomenal things with his money and (let's be honest here) he is EXACTLY what we all want to one day be: The man we think of first as trying to hurt Linux.
Basically what you are saying is it's ok to have an illegal monopolist in your country as long as said monopolist has a lot of power and wealth. Your worth is not measured in money or power.
Having a monopoly in my country does not help me at all. He buys politicians with his money: Open Secrets corp watch
Thank god though that monopolies are part of the Anglo American cultural heritage. Now while I'm trolling I can tell everyone that I can't help it cause being a jerk is part of my cultural heritage.
Anti trust laws don't work. They attempt to solve the problem of corporations getting out of control only after the corporation has gone out of control. There need to be laws that prevent corporations from getting to size where they become trusts. The main problem is that corporations are legally a person. Thus they are covered under the bill of rights.
If a corporation was not a person then they could conceivable not be able to spend money on political campaigns. Giving money to a political campaign is protected under the first amendment, which corporations have put themselves under by legally becoming a person. The US democracy could return to the actual people instead of corporate "people". As it stands, the government defends corporations way too much because that's where the money for their reelection comes from.
I'm not sure exactly how to undefine a corporation as a person, but it's the sort of out of the box thinking that needs to happen. It's exactly what other crazy revolutionaries dreamed many years before us:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
(Letter to Logan, 1816). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 138 (S. Padover Ed. 1953)
Have anti-trust laws been used on a major corporation in the last 10 years in the US? I'm asking cause I don't know. My gut reaction is that people have tried and failed cause corporations can pay for expensive lawyers to fight antitrust allegations.
For some reason I doubt that the current justice department is actively pursuing any antitrust violations because corporations help pay to elect officials. If anyone can tell me about current antitrust litigation that would be great since I am not very familiar with it.
Yes you need to replace them sometime after 20+ years. In order to curb this waste people are working on organic solar panels to both bring down the cost of solar and reduce the environmental impact that the panels have when thrown away.
The technology to run the entire US off of solar exists.
Nuclear is better than coal. Solar is better than Nuclear. There are so many regulations to get a nuclear plant put in that the US hasn't built a new plant since the 70s or so.
Everything that you said about Nuclear can be said of solar:
# We have the technology now.
# The technology can replace full US capacity.
# Relatively non-disruptive.
# Cost effective.
# Effective at limiting pollution.
Solar is better at limiting pollution. The downside to solar is it's location dependent. Nuclear is also location dependent. Specifically you can't put one close to anyone's house cause nobody wants to live next to a nuclear power plant.
Actually I agree with you that Nuclear is a great source of energy. I just prefer my nuclear reactions to occur at the sun instead of here on earth.
Since I found Retinitis Pigmentosa on the foundation fighting blindness webpage I find your post highly suspect. (Please see the Can RP Lead to Total Blindness? question)
The problem with a subretinal approach is if you mess up the surgery at all, there goes your retina and all your hopes of seeing again (unless you implant in the brain or the optic nerve). The epiretinal approach allows doctors to implant multiple times without damaging the retina. Although it takes more power for epiretinal implants, if I went blind I would prefer it due to it's allowance for error.
In order to stimulate the millions of rods and cones individually in order to produce color, the implants would need to be significantly smaller. Currently these implants stimulate large groups of rods and cones. It is currently impossible to individually select the rods and cones for stimulus with this approach. Stanford has a research project to use chemical stimulus to stimulate individual rods and cones.
The problem with using solar cells is in order to make enough power, you want the solar cell to be bigger in order to absorb the most light. You also want the solar cells to be small in order to increase the resolution. The research here is increasing efficiency like crazy.
The problem with Stanford's research is releasing and recapturing the chemicals needed for stimulus. And the chemical approach is behind the electrical approach. The electrical approach already has had success with patients.
"Is your neighborhood under the constant threat of attack from roving mobs?"
Roving mobs eh. I think the ahmish have a real problem with the whole roving mobs thing. Cause they don't hire police. I think the main reason I'm not Ahmish is the roving mobs. That and the whole no computers thing. It's mostly the roving mobs though.
Apple is wrong in doing this. Freedom of speech should be protected. I shouldn't hold my tongue because it might offend a corporations' bottom line. Think secret did absolutely nothing wrong and apple is using strong arm tactics to try to get what it wants.
Oh and that freedom of speech law is the first thing in the bill of rights. The US founding fathers are on think secret's side.
If this is the way apple is trying to get extra publicity for it's products then I think it's doublely wrong. Trying to limit someone's rights as a publicity stunt is wrong wrong wrong.
I'm writing this on my ibook but when it's apple versus my rights, I will always side with my rights.
I'm gonna troll on this one:
Sure it takes brains to design the car. It just takes less to drive it and even less to sit and watch someone else drive it. Nascar and most car racing is pretty pointless and wasteful. So is golf.
Easiest way for people to ignore the actual article? Put a comment about how gore invented the internet of course. It also helps that the article is slashdotted.
Slashdot Mirror
http://rateitall.com/i-19041-slashdot.aspx
Which "great dictators"? Name a dictator that had an effective army full of mindless, uneducated "drones". Name an effective army that wasn't backed by a solid educational system. Killing teachers is a move to solidify a political position, not to create an ignorant pool of cannon fodder.
Well the obvious response of hittler come to mind. He was not great in his vision for the world, but the Nazi's sure were great at controlling public opinion through intense propaganda machines. The people's intense political position helped hittler go on a huge killing spree. His army worked pretty well because the people in the army did not question the motives for going to war. The Nazi army was very effective at killing because they did not question their orders' motives. I'm sure they were educated enough to make smart tactical decisions.
Teaching an army about moral behavior does not help the military kill people. Militarys have varying goals, but the means are always the same: killing people. Whether the military is there to secure the peace, liberate or save it's people, push back invaders... the means of the military remain the same. Force (killing).
In regard to the military looking down on D&D players, I don't really care. Maybe D&D players make bad killers.
I really hope the US military rejects people that play D&D. That would be great. That way if there is a draft I can say "I play D&D" instead of lying and telling them I'm gay. Come on US military... D&D is EVIL. Paper + dice = worst soldiers ever.
Any references to actual people are totally on accident.
Unfortunately the lack of an airport driver is the main reason I have not gone with Linux on my Mac. I prefer a 100% open source operating system instead of apple's open source darwin/closed source aqua. That and I can't check homestarrunner.com cause there's no open source flash viewer and macromedia won't release ppc closed source compatible version.
If Microsoft was based out of say Britain then I don't think the government would care as much. That would financially be the worst for the US.
Even if your original post is all about Microsoft's contribution to the financial state of the US, the position that it is priceless is unfounded. Microsoft IS a financial liability to the US. They constantly push other companies out of the marketplace. Netscape and Sun are two large companies that were hurt by Microsoft. There are hundreds of small businesses that do not have the access to the kind of money to sue Microsoft for their various illegal activities. Those small businesses must shut down I am therefore of the opinion that Microsoft IS a liability to the financial well being of the US as well as a moral liability.
Those are two places where it sounds like you think what bill and Microsoft has done is ok. The first one even sounds better than ok. It sounds quite positive.
"Now, if you could please tell me how that makes me say that I think anything is OK, I would be thrilled." You should be extra thrilled now.I don't really care how authentic the bible is. If someone picks the bible up. Reads it. Then decided that the things Jesus did are great and that they would like to do great things then I mark that as 1 point for Jesus. If Jesus is able to get people to understand and love one another then I say he's ok in my book.
I even think that other religions that ask for the same love towards our common man that Jesus talks about, are working toward what god intended with Jesus.
Religions that preach hate in the name of god are preaching contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. God Hates Fags... I'm looking at you.
From a historical perspective, learning about how the bible came about is fascinating. From a religious standpoint understanding where the gospel comes from doesn't really matter. Understanding that the bible says you need to love and respect your common man is religiously paramount.
A person can:
1. Underhandedly obtain money (lets go with armed robbery to spice things up)
2. Donate a 1/10th of it to fight aids in Africa
3. Smile since they are morally in the clear because of 2.
4. Repeat
5. Profit! From 1. (only added this cause it's slashdot)
Anyhow. I guess my point is that if I rob you and then donate half the money I steal from you, it doesn't make me a morally good person. I guess that just proves that knighthood doesn't mean much.
I know how much the slashot community loves to hate Bill Gates (and I admit, it can be fun from time to time), but this man has pushed more small businesses out of the market than EVERY SINGLE one of us combined will in our lives.
Sure, he has the money and we don't, but it is easy to say that if you were a billionaire, you would be crushing small businesses, it's probably harder to actually do. Let's give this man some credit where credit is due, he is doing phenomenal things with his money and (let's be honest here) he is EXACTLY what we all want to one day be: The man we think of first as trying to hurt Linux.
If we had a current day robin hood he would steal from Bill Gates and give to the poor.
Having a foundation to donate a small stone in his mountain of money does not make the man the next Jesus.
Having a monopoly in my country does not help me at all. He buys politicians with his money:
Open Secrets
corp watch
Thank god though that monopolies are part of the Anglo American cultural heritage. Now while I'm trolling I can tell everyone that I can't help it cause being a jerk is part of my cultural heritage.
If a corporation was not a person then they could conceivable not be able to spend money on political campaigns. Giving money to a political campaign is protected under the first amendment, which corporations have put themselves under by legally becoming a person. The US democracy could return to the actual people instead of corporate "people". As it stands, the government defends corporations way too much because that's where the money for their reelection comes from.
I'm not sure exactly how to undefine a corporation as a person, but it's the sort of out of the box thinking that needs to happen. It's exactly what other crazy revolutionaries dreamed many years before us:
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
(Letter to Logan, 1816). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 138 (S. Padover Ed. 1953)
For some reason I doubt that the current justice department is actively pursuing any antitrust violations because corporations help pay to elect officials. If anyone can tell me about current antitrust litigation that would be great since I am not very familiar with it.
Yes you need to replace them sometime after 20+ years. In order to curb this waste people are working on organic solar panels to both bring down the cost of solar and reduce the environmental impact that the panels have when thrown away.
We have cleaner.
The technology to run the entire US off of solar exists. Nuclear is better than coal. Solar is better than Nuclear. There are so many regulations to get a nuclear plant put in that the US hasn't built a new plant since the 70s or so. Everything that you said about Nuclear can be said of solar: # We have the technology now. # The technology can replace full US capacity. # Relatively non-disruptive. # Cost effective. # Effective at limiting pollution. Solar is better at limiting pollution. The downside to solar is it's location dependent. Nuclear is also location dependent. Specifically you can't put one close to anyone's house cause nobody wants to live next to a nuclear power plant. Actually I agree with you that Nuclear is a great source of energy. I just prefer my nuclear reactions to occur at the sun instead of here on earth.
A quick google search proves this to be the case:n t=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=retin al+pigmentosa+blindness&spell=1/)
Two seconds of google to check up on it, SimianOverlord. Another three seconds to actually read the google results. Is that so difficult?
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&clie
http://www.bostonretinalimplant.org/
http://bmes-erc.usc.edu/index.htm/
The problem with using solar cells is in order to make enough power, you want the solar cell to be bigger in order to absorb the most light. You also want the solar cells to be small in order to increase the resolution. The research here is increasing efficiency like crazy.
The problem with Stanford's research is releasing and recapturing the chemicals needed for stimulus. And the chemical approach is behind the electrical approach. The electrical approach already has had success with patients.
Oh and that freedom of speech law is the first thing in the bill of rights. The US founding fathers are on think secret's side.
If this is the way apple is trying to get extra publicity for it's products then I think it's doublely wrong. Trying to limit someone's rights as a publicity stunt is wrong wrong wrong.
I'm writing this on my ibook but when it's apple versus my rights, I will always side with my rights.
I'm gonna troll on this one: Sure it takes brains to design the car. It just takes less to drive it and even less to sit and watch someone else drive it. Nascar and most car racing is pretty pointless and wasteful. So is golf.
Easiest way for people to ignore the actual article? Put a comment about how gore invented the internet of course. It also helps that the article is slashdotted.