The issue is more complex than this. You break down a broader philisophical notion of: When does life begin and how valuable is it? into an only religious context. For some discussions, this is fine since religion is one of the few feilds that societies seem comfortable in discussing morality. However, this issue goes further than this.
The West has a cultural memory of WWII. Part of this legacy is the idea of Eugenics, championed by Those Guys Who Lost. They did some of the original work on cloning, and selectivity in people. In fact, the believed that some sub-groups of humanity were intrinsically better than others. When we research cloning and embryo modification, these issues become important because it will ulimately allow people to make decisions on which traits propogate. Thinking about this before the genie is out of the bottle shows amazing restraint and forsight. Honestly, it is hard to beleive that anyone could be against contemplation and rational discussion before fundamental changing the human condition.
In the east, less prohibitions against eugenics exist. Again, this arises from many aspects of the cultures, and not mere religion. At a small level, this is evidenced by gender selection. Several asian countries have practiced eugenics, in that a gender was selected for, to such an extent that the male/female ratio is not 50/50. This is known to such an extent that even Newsweek had a recent article on this topic. Furthermore, taboos about favoring race tend to be less prevelent than western culture. This lack of social stigma to racial favortism and genetic selection allows this type of research to progress. This has little to do with seeing the future for what it is, or any greater mission of free flowing ideas.
Ultimately, will the world be a better place as stem cell research increases? Honestly, I don't know, but then again, neither does anyone else. Blaming any restraint on persuing this science is larger than the trite case of "religion bad, science good." Larger issues are at stake, and need to be taken in total context of where the human entity is as a people, and were we want to be.
The stark truth is, the United States has the world's greatest military, greatest eccononmy, greastest inventions, etc. This is also coupled with general freedom and great generosity. The United states went to the moon. They cured polio. They brough sound and light to the entire world. Truly, a remarkable nation.
Some may feel their hackles rising at the above statement. The real question is why? At its core, those feelings stem from petty jealousy and envy. Ugly emotions that serve no constructive use, but are common. When faced with greatness, people have one of two responses. To tear it apart and drag it into the mud so you can feel better. Or, to try to get better. I think too often in the world the second case is chosen. Sadly, it is not even seen that way.
So, why write the first paragraph? Not to instill anger, but to remind that the US is a great nation. It would be the height of illogic to say otherwise, even if you do not agree with the country in all things. So, the question becomes, WHY is the US such a great nation? In a large part, I believe it is the character and culture much of which is summed up in the Hollywood ending. America does well because it believes in the good ending. That the calvery will come to save the day. That in the end, the good side wins. Sure, it is easy to deride this as simple. And I am sure the world is full of people knowingly nodding in coffee shops saying this idea is silly. Yet, at the end of the day, the US history is full of Hollywood endings. So, are they really that trite?
I know about the DS9 episode, which was funny, but damaging in that regard. I believe most of us were mature enough to be able to just say, in 1960's they could not easily have special effects like the current Kilingons. Now they can. Technology improves special effects with time, but that does not need to change the story.
The thing that has really disturbed me in the last few Star Trek series, and all movies that had Piccard, is the near complete disreguard for continuity. To me, this has been the death nell of the series.
For some reason, the powers that be can't leave well enough alone. We have a cool, new alien in the Borg. They are machine, ruthless, and insanely efficent. They overcome all with faceless precision. In short, Alien in the true meaning of the word. I still remember getting goose bumps during those first few episodes. Now we fast forward to the movies, where we get a Borg queen who has desires and emotions. Less mechanical. More human and boring.
Each series has done more to chip away at any established good ideas. It has gotten so bad in the movies, they can't even follow consistency in itself and are increasingly trite. (I have a new race of Romulans who can't stand light. They are attacking my ship, and I can't think to turn on the high beams?)
Enterprise is interesting in scope and principal. As stated in another post, a tale of the history of starfleet. This has the potential to be cool, but with one caviot. The writers can't be lazy. We KNOW what the future is. You have to play within the bounds. This means no Ferengi, since they are clearly not met until next gen. This means NO inventing Alien races for wars that were never mentioned. (We know Fed fought the Romulans, don't you think other wars would get a mention?) This is the core of the whole Star Trek problem. The writers are lazy and don't respect the work of others. For some reason, 450,000,000 star trek fans can remember past episodes and understand the flow of events, why can't they? The bottom line is that this will kill Enterprise, which really did have potential. And, they killed the movies. In our heart of hearts, we all know this is a sad thing. Shame on them.
harveybirdman wrote "I rarely heed the word of grown adults who still use the word "sucks"
How about:
My turbomolecular pump sucks more than yours. Mine pumps at 240 L/sec and yours is a mere 60 L/sec.:) Oh, and I think the doc is ok. Will you take me seriously? I hope so, I so love your show, Mr. Birdman.
The world is strange. Microsoft takes about 3 months to steal the OS X look with Xp. Does it poorly, and somehow, the criticism is that Os X is approaching Xp's bad "cartoon" implimentation of Os X? Classic case of what came first, the chicken or the bad smelling egg if you ask me.
I did not want to spend all my Friday defending Pres. Bush, but I hate blind bashing (I was same for Clinton too). First, the uniter/divider statement is an increadibly weak attack to come back with since it is touchy/feely statement. The above post would be stronger if it was based more hard legislation, but so be it. Let's look at it more analytically, shall we? Afterall, we are all nerds here and we like logic over emmotion, don't we?:)
By uniting, one can define it as bringing people together. First, lets examine the case of the US. When Bush took office, it was on the wings of a disputed election that was bound to leave about 50% of the country pretty pissed off no matter who won (same rules for Gore). The polling numbers reflect this, with Bush having a favorable rating of about 50%. Currently, he is about 60% with a career high in high 80's near sept 11. this number is down from the mid 60's this week after the introduction of new immigration legislation, which is at the momment unpopular but about bringing the US and Mexico closer together and more united. (funny that.) Now, back to word, unite. Unite does mean bring closer together in opinion in idea. In his time, he brought 10% (more on average) people together. Therefore, he was true to his statement and he united. FYI, you may be horrified to know that the great uniter and very charismatic Clinton had a similar approval rating at the end of hist term, and low in 30% range (no, this wasn't even due to impeachment but his first/second year).
Wait, you cry! It is silly to look at polling data to define unite! Well, I sorta agree, but the attack was silly in the first place, we work with what is given. Do I admire Bush in all things and always agree with him? No, certinally not. But supposedly thinking people evaluate each situation based on facts and what they know. I hate to break it to you, but Bush is not always wrong. He is not hated by everyone. It is ok to admitt he is good at somethings and even occasionally correct. If you see it otherwise, then hate is clouding your judgement and that is just sad.
I once read an analysis about Bush that attempted to determine the key to his success. The long and short of it is that his opponents keep under estimating him. He loves projecting the personna of being stupid and underacheiving. Then, when lulled into smug confidence, he crushes his opponents.
Sure, you laugh, but we are now about four years into the Bush presidency and look what he has suceeded in doing. He got his tax cuts. He broke the Taliban. He conquered Iraq. He revamped the EPA. He created a new federal agency. Do I need go on?
You may hate his policies. I am sure you will even offer long anti-Bush posts after this. But, it does not change the fact that he does what he says, and succeeds in doing it. If he says we will got Mars, we will go. How can any truly thinking indavidual read the situation otherwise?
Mega power on the lap
Mega power burns like crap
Mega power day or night
but, no
Mega power on that flight
Mega power from AMD
Mega power from intel, someday, you'll see!
You are so right. It is important for the crack security team to find and punish the guy who took some innocuous photos of a loading dock after it has been posted and millions see it. His sins far outwiegh the guy who is taking photos of Longhorn, and selling them to Redhat (or whatever passes for competition) under the table. Glad they are keeping MS safe by chasing the right badguys!
Originally, the shows/movies took this into account. You could not hit a warp speed ship with a phaser. This is why you had to drop out of warp to do all the fighting. Ever wonder why Wrath of Khan was all sublight speed? They were thinking at one point, honest. Sadly, I think like everything else, the violated this in Voyager...
I believe you still have time to cancel the order, if you act soon. Apple is pretty good about this. Now, which product you want is up to you....
-Iowa
I am surprised this got by the combined expertise of slashdot for so long. Until recently, China did not have the ICBM technology to hit the US very accurately. Due to some secrets being leaked by Loral Corporation in the mid 90's, they obtained the technolody to accelerate there ICBM programs, which we affectionately call there space program these days. The two technologies are one and the same. If you can boost into space with no problem, you are 9/10 the way an ICBM.
So, for an educated crowd like this one, you should have understood that the launch the other day was China telling the world that now the US and (yes, even) Europe are now under the gun. I know it is not popular, but China really is a totalitarian regime with a sketchy human rights record and with a more aggressive military than many seem to think (ask Tiawan, or remember they fought US, USSR, Viet Nam etc. in the last few decades). On the positive side, China is opening up, but not there yet. Somehow, many keep forgetting this.
Remember, the fact that Sputnik went beep beep was not what scared people. It was the fact that the USSR was saying we had an ICBM that did.....
Being a bio guy, maybe I am niave, but isn't the fact that one get set up a top 50 super computer in about two weeks something of an acheivement? Yes, it is only 80%, but that still makes it on the list. Wow.
_Iowa
Mr Geeklawyer, you could write a book, but it would be triped up fiction at best. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but a little reality check for you.
The difference between the United States and other countries like, oh, I don't know, say The United Kingdom, France, or even Roam, is that when we had a chance to conquer the world, we didn't. I know this is hard to wrap your head around, since it is not what obviously you, or your nation would have (had) done in a similar situation. I know, you are yelling,"IT AIN'T SO! THE US WAS NEVER IN THAT POSITION. I MEAN, IF YOU TRULY COULDA, YOU WOULDA JUST LIKE US!" Let me remind you of a little history. I know, I am just an American, and what do we know of History, especially to smart educated Euros like yourself, but bare with me. In 1945, we (that being the US) invented this thingy called a NUCLEAR BOMB. As far as weapons go, it was well, the bomb. In fact, it was so much so, that people often referred to it as, THE BOMB. The bomb was awesome, able to level large cities faster than a rioting crowd after a British soccer match. In fact, the bomb was soooo very devestating that nothing could stop it and to this day, the mere threat of having one dropped on your !## can bring a country to its knees quaking in fear. And that is with the possibility that they or one of their allies could dump one back at you! Now, recall with your more historically astute Euro mind that no one else had one of these until the Soviet Union in 1949. That is, ummm, let me see, American's are bad a math too I am told, hold on, oh yeah, 5 WHOLE YEARS WE HAD ONE AND NO ONE ELSE DID. Oh, I know they took a bit of time to make, but, say we dumped a few on the old USSR, do you think they would have had time to develop one in 1949? No, bing, bing, right answer. Let me see who else could have stopped the US. War torn, I had just spent 5 years and three Empires of money and resources trying to kill my Europe? Ummmm, no people, no cash, no will. BEEEEP wrong answer. How about the ever lovable populous Asian Empires such as China. Well, this little old country called Japan had just put the hurt on them, and they were recovering. And, well, they didn't even have THE BOMB. So, nope. Ok, I could find a few other example, but Americans are also bad at geography, and you get the point. We could have done it. We had the power to do it. We stepped up to the ledge of our darker side, and guess what? We did not do it. Why? Because it is not the American way. This may be hard for a people to imagine who spent so many years making sure the sun never set on their zones of oppression, but Americans really don't think about empire. We don't dream of owning everything and telling everyone what to do in all facets of their lives. If we did, we could have it and would do it. Seriously. I know it is fun to bitch about American Empire and opression, and it makes good literature, but your post is nothing more than just that. So, weave your webs, and jump at your shadows. For all your what if's and possibilities, at the end of the day, we had our test and passed. Sorry you didn't.
We just don't like the idea of a system on which our lives increasingly depend being under the control of a foreign military.
Ummm, I hate to point this out, but do you mean as system, Europe? For the last 50 years, free Europe has bairly defended itself, and has enjoyed living under the American shield while the US paid the cost. During this time, Europe was more than glad to have their system controlled by some "foriegn general," than do it themselves. Only when the danger is dimmished has it become so paramount for the continent to be free of all the tyrranical American ideas of collective defense and cooperation. It seems to me that modern Europeans have a strange need express independance by defying and contridicting the US at every turn. I find this to be cynnical at best and childish at worst. But, judging by these forums, I guess it is just me.
-Iowa
BTW Did you know that the as of about a month ago, the Swedish military does not work on weekends?
BTW, I know that it may be argued that each country was small, and could not match the resources of the US, so cold war defense had to be from the United States. Yet, somehow, with the danger past, the people of Europe have figured out that if you sum the GDP and populations of western Europe, it is greater than the United States. Imagine that.
Close. What happened was that Apple engineers were excited by the potential power offered by the new power pc chips. They created a math library, that had function calls called Sagan, as a way to offer homage. Sagan, who was very image conscience, did not like his name being used without his permission, sued. That is what sparked the vitriol explained in the above post.
No, I just think shows how DUMB this girl and her family is. That $29.95 is a ONE-time fee for an ad-free version of Kazaa, not a monthly fee. Did they actually believe that paying $29.95 for a copy of a program meant that they can download all the copyrighted music they want?
Yeah, I have no idea where they could have gotten such a stupid idea. Now, if you can excuse me, I am going to go home and watch a show recorded with something called aVCR which I got beemed to me over theairwaves for free. God, how could she have ever gotten the idea that you can buy a device and enjoy art for free. Morons indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is more complex than this. You break down a broader philisophical notion of: When does life begin and how valuable is it? into an only religious context. For some discussions, this is fine since religion is one of the few feilds that societies seem comfortable in discussing morality. However, this issue goes further than this.
The West has a cultural memory of WWII. Part of this legacy is the idea of Eugenics, championed by Those Guys Who Lost. They did some of the original work on cloning, and selectivity in people. In fact, the believed that some sub-groups of humanity were intrinsically better than others. When we research cloning and embryo modification, these issues become important because it will ulimately allow people to make decisions on which traits propogate. Thinking about this before the genie is out of the bottle shows amazing restraint and forsight. Honestly, it is hard to beleive that anyone could be against contemplation and rational discussion before fundamental changing the human condition.
In the east, less prohibitions against eugenics exist. Again, this arises from many aspects of the cultures, and not mere religion. At a small level, this is evidenced by gender selection. Several asian countries have practiced eugenics, in that a gender was selected for, to such an extent that the male/female ratio is not 50/50. This is known to such an extent that even Newsweek had a recent article on this topic. Furthermore, taboos about favoring race tend to be less prevelent than western culture. This lack of social stigma to racial favortism and genetic selection allows this type of research to progress. This has little to do with seeing the future for what it is, or any greater mission of free flowing ideas.
Ultimately, will the world be a better place as stem cell research increases? Honestly, I don't know, but then again, neither does anyone else. Blaming any restraint on persuing this science is larger than the trite case of "religion bad, science good." Larger issues are at stake, and need to be taken in total context of where the human entity is as a people, and were we want to be.
my two cents,
-Iowa
The stark truth is, the United States has the world's greatest military, greatest eccononmy, greastest inventions, etc. This is also coupled with general freedom and great generosity. The United states went to the moon. They cured polio. They brough sound and light to the entire world. Truly, a remarkable nation.
Some may feel their hackles rising at the above statement. The real question is why? At its core, those feelings stem from petty jealousy and envy. Ugly emotions that serve no constructive use, but are common. When faced with greatness, people have one of two responses. To tear it apart and drag it into the mud so you can feel better. Or, to try to get better. I think too often in the world the second case is chosen. Sadly, it is not even seen that way.
So, why write the first paragraph? Not to instill anger, but to remind that the US is a great nation. It would be the height of illogic to say otherwise, even if you do not agree with the country in all things. So, the question becomes, WHY is the US such a great nation? In a large part, I believe it is the character and culture much of which is summed up in the Hollywood ending. America does well because it believes in the good ending. That the calvery will come to save the day. That in the end, the good side wins. Sure, it is easy to deride this as simple. And I am sure the world is full of people knowingly nodding in coffee shops saying this idea is silly. Yet, at the end of the day, the US history is full of Hollywood endings. So, are they really that trite?
My two cents,
-Iowa
I know about the DS9 episode, which was funny, but damaging in that regard. I believe most of us were mature enough to be able to just say, in 1960's they could not easily have special effects like the current Kilingons. Now they can. Technology improves special effects with time, but that does not need to change the story.
Everyone (ok, trekkies) are forgiving of a bad start with lumps. However, the other shows gelled as the went on and got better. See the difference?
The thing that has really disturbed me in the last few Star Trek series, and all movies that had Piccard, is the near complete disreguard for continuity. To me, this has been the death nell of the series.
For some reason, the powers that be can't leave well enough alone. We have a cool, new alien in the Borg. They are machine, ruthless, and insanely efficent. They overcome all with faceless precision. In short, Alien in the true meaning of the word. I still remember getting goose bumps during those first few episodes. Now we fast forward to the movies, where we get a Borg queen who has desires and emotions. Less mechanical. More human and boring.
Each series has done more to chip away at any established good ideas. It has gotten so bad in the movies, they can't even follow consistency in itself and are increasingly trite. (I have a new race of Romulans who can't stand light. They are attacking my ship, and I can't think to turn on the high beams?)
Enterprise is interesting in scope and principal. As stated in another post, a tale of the history of starfleet. This has the potential to be cool, but with one caviot. The writers can't be lazy. We KNOW what the future is. You have to play within the bounds. This means no Ferengi, since they are clearly not met until next gen. This means NO inventing Alien races for wars that were never mentioned. (We know Fed fought the Romulans, don't you think other wars would get a mention?) This is the core of the whole Star Trek problem. The writers are lazy and don't respect the work of others. For some reason, 450,000,000 star trek fans can remember past episodes and understand the flow of events, why can't they? The bottom line is that this will kill Enterprise, which really did have potential. And, they killed the movies. In our heart of hearts, we all know this is a sad thing. Shame on them.
I or one, would love to have a show with a good story AND skin and special effects. :)
Because otherwise and MBA won't be able to understand. Damn those 12 year olds and their complex ways.
da dum, ting!
harveybirdman wrote "I rarely heed the word of grown adults who still use the word "sucks"
:) Oh, and I think the doc is ok. Will you take me seriously? I hope so, I so love your show, Mr. Birdman.
How about:
My turbomolecular pump sucks more than yours. Mine pumps at 240 L/sec and yours is a mere 60 L/sec.
The world is strange. Microsoft takes about 3 months to steal the OS X look with Xp. Does it poorly, and somehow, the criticism is that Os X is approaching Xp's bad "cartoon" implimentation of Os X? Classic case of what came first, the chicken or the bad smelling egg if you ask me.
I did not want to spend all my Friday defending Pres. Bush, but I hate blind bashing (I was same for Clinton too). First, the uniter/divider statement is an increadibly weak attack to come back with since it is touchy/feely statement. The above post would be stronger if it was based more hard legislation, but so be it. Let's look at it more analytically, shall we? Afterall, we are all nerds here and we like logic over emmotion, don't we? :)
By uniting, one can define it as bringing people together. First, lets examine the case of the US. When Bush took office, it was on the wings of a disputed election that was bound to leave about 50% of the country pretty pissed off no matter who won (same rules for Gore). The polling numbers reflect this, with Bush having a favorable rating of about 50%. Currently, he is about 60% with a career high in high 80's near sept 11. this number is down from the mid 60's this week after the introduction of new immigration legislation, which is at the momment unpopular but about bringing the US and Mexico closer together and more united. (funny that.) Now, back to word, unite. Unite does mean bring closer together in opinion in idea. In his time, he brought 10% (more on average) people together. Therefore, he was true to his statement and he united. FYI, you may be horrified to know that the great uniter and very charismatic Clinton had a similar approval rating at the end of hist term, and low in 30% range (no, this wasn't even due to impeachment but his first/second year).
Wait, you cry! It is silly to look at polling data to define unite! Well, I sorta agree, but the attack was silly in the first place, we work with what is given. Do I admire Bush in all things and always agree with him? No, certinally not. But supposedly thinking people evaluate each situation based on facts and what they know. I hate to break it to you, but Bush is not always wrong. He is not hated by everyone. It is ok to admitt he is good at somethings and even occasionally correct. If you see it otherwise, then hate is clouding your judgement and that is just sad.
my two cents
-Iowa
I once read an analysis about Bush that attempted to determine the key to his success. The long and short of it is that his opponents keep under estimating him. He loves projecting the personna of being stupid and underacheiving. Then, when lulled into smug confidence, he crushes his opponents.
Sure, you laugh, but we are now about four years into the Bush presidency and look what he has suceeded in doing. He got his tax cuts. He broke the Taliban. He conquered Iraq. He revamped the EPA. He created a new federal agency. Do I need go on?
You may hate his policies. I am sure you will even offer long anti-Bush posts after this. But, it does not change the fact that he does what he says, and succeeds in doing it. If he says we will got Mars, we will go. How can any truly thinking indavidual read the situation otherwise?
My two cents,
-Iowa
By more international, do you mean by moving all Hp's operations overseas?
yes it will, someday....
Wooooaaaa, like, I think i saw some of those trailers, like, before. It was, like, ummm, deja vu.
cue music
The matrix has you.
Moore's Second Law: The number of mentions of Moore's first law on slashdot will double every 18 months.
Mega power on the lap
Mega power burns like crap
Mega power day or night
but, no
Mega power on that flight
Mega power from AMD
Mega power from intel, someday, you'll see!
You are so right. It is important for the crack security team to find and punish the guy who took some innocuous photos of a loading dock after it has been posted and millions see it. His sins far outwiegh the guy who is taking photos of Longhorn, and selling them to Redhat (or whatever passes for competition) under the table. Glad they are keeping MS safe by chasing the right badguys!
Originally, the shows/movies took this into account. You could not hit a warp speed ship with a phaser. This is why you had to drop out of warp to do all the fighting. Ever wonder why Wrath of Khan was all sublight speed? They were thinking at one point, honest. Sadly, I think like everything else, the violated this in Voyager...
-Iowa
I believe you still have time to cancel the order, if you act soon. Apple is pretty good about this. Now, which product you want is up to you.... -Iowa
I am surprised this got by the combined expertise of slashdot for so long. Until recently, China did not have the ICBM technology to hit the US very accurately. Due to some secrets being leaked by Loral Corporation in the mid 90's, they obtained the technolody to accelerate there ICBM programs, which we affectionately call there space program these days. The two technologies are one and the same. If you can boost into space with no problem, you are 9/10 the way an ICBM.
So, for an educated crowd like this one, you should have understood that the launch the other day was China telling the world that now the US and (yes, even) Europe are now under the gun. I know it is not popular, but China really is a totalitarian regime with a sketchy human rights record and with a more aggressive military than many seem to think (ask Tiawan, or remember they fought US, USSR, Viet Nam etc. in the last few decades). On the positive side, China is opening up, but not there yet. Somehow, many keep forgetting this.
Remember, the fact that Sputnik went beep beep was not what scared people. It was the fact that the USSR was saying we had an ICBM that did.....
-Iowa
Being a bio guy, maybe I am niave, but isn't the fact that one get set up a top 50 super computer in about two weeks something of an acheivement? Yes, it is only 80%, but that still makes it on the list. Wow. _Iowa
Mr Geeklawyer, you could write a book, but it would be triped up fiction at best. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person, but a little reality check for you.
The difference between the United States and other countries like, oh, I don't know, say The United Kingdom, France, or even Roam, is that when we had a chance to conquer the world, we didn't. I know this is hard to wrap your head around, since it is not what obviously you, or your nation would have (had) done in a similar situation. I know, you are yelling,"IT AIN'T SO! THE US WAS NEVER IN THAT POSITION. I MEAN, IF YOU TRULY COULDA, YOU WOULDA JUST LIKE US!" Let me remind you of a little history. I know, I am just an American, and what do we know of History, especially to smart educated Euros like yourself, but bare with me. In 1945, we (that being the US) invented this thingy called a NUCLEAR BOMB. As far as weapons go, it was well, the bomb. In fact, it was so much so, that people often referred to it as, THE BOMB. The bomb was awesome, able to level large cities faster than a rioting crowd after a British soccer match. In fact, the bomb was soooo very devestating that nothing could stop it and to this day, the mere threat of having one dropped on your !## can bring a country to its knees quaking in fear. And that is with the possibility that they or one of their allies could dump one back at you! Now, recall with your more historically astute Euro mind that no one else had one of these until the Soviet Union in 1949. That is, ummm, let me see, American's are bad a math too I am told, hold on, oh yeah, 5 WHOLE YEARS WE HAD ONE AND NO ONE ELSE DID. Oh, I know they took a bit of time to make, but, say we dumped a few on the old USSR, do you think they would have had time to develop one in 1949? No, bing, bing, right answer. Let me see who else could have stopped the US. War torn, I had just spent 5 years and three Empires of money and resources trying to kill my Europe? Ummmm, no people, no cash, no will. BEEEEP wrong answer. How about the ever lovable populous Asian Empires such as China. Well, this little old country called Japan had just put the hurt on them, and they were recovering. And, well, they didn't even have THE BOMB. So, nope. Ok, I could find a few other example, but Americans are also bad at geography, and you get the point. We could have done it. We had the power to do it. We stepped up to the ledge of our darker side, and guess what? We did not do it. Why? Because it is not the American way. This may be hard for a people to imagine who spent so many years making sure the sun never set on their zones of oppression, but Americans really don't think about empire. We don't dream of owning everything and telling everyone what to do in all facets of their lives. If we did, we could have it and would do it. Seriously. I know it is fun to bitch about American Empire and opression, and it makes good literature, but your post is nothing more than just that. So, weave your webs, and jump at your shadows. For all your what if's and possibilities, at the end of the day, we had our test and passed. Sorry you didn't.
We just don't like the idea of a system on which our lives increasingly depend being under the control of a foreign military.
Ummm, I hate to point this out, but do you mean as system, Europe? For the last 50 years, free Europe has bairly defended itself, and has enjoyed living under the American shield while the US paid the cost. During this time, Europe was more than glad to have their system controlled by some "foriegn general," than do it themselves. Only when the danger is dimmished has it become so paramount for the continent to be free of all the tyrranical American ideas of collective defense and cooperation. It seems to me that modern Europeans have a strange need express independance by defying and contridicting the US at every turn. I find this to be cynnical at best and childish at worst. But, judging by these forums, I guess it is just me.
-Iowa
BTW Did you know that the as of about a month ago, the Swedish military does not work on weekends?
BTW, I know that it may be argued that each country was small, and could not match the resources of the US, so cold war defense had to be from the United States. Yet, somehow, with the danger past, the people of Europe have figured out that if you sum the GDP and populations of western Europe, it is greater than the United States. Imagine that.
Close. What happened was that Apple engineers were excited by the potential power offered by the new power pc chips. They created a math library, that had function calls called Sagan, as a way to offer homage. Sagan, who was very image conscience, did not like his name being used without his permission, sued. That is what sparked the vitriol explained in the above post.
Iowa
No, I just think shows how DUMB this girl and her family is. That $29.95 is a ONE-time fee for an ad-free version of Kazaa, not a monthly fee. Did they actually believe that paying $29.95 for a copy of a program meant that they can download all the copyrighted music they want?
Yeah, I have no idea where they could have gotten such a stupid idea. Now, if you can excuse me, I am going to go home and watch a show recorded with something called aVCR which I got beemed to me over theairwaves for free. God, how could she have ever gotten the idea that you can buy a device and enjoy art for free. Morons indeed.