Military is not the only way, nor is anyone forced to enlist. I was poor, you don't see me in the marines. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
If only there was enough bread and circus to go around.
>If the US actually cared, they would have been in Rwanda
This is completely illogical. Rwanda had zero geopolitical value, the UN was "peacekeeping" there AND NATO was embroiled in an expensive war in the Balkans at the time.
You have given me hope on an otherwise listless day. You should be skeptical as I am of all four sides in this conflict. There's always something in it for someone. If greed is not good- it is still real; it must exist- for without greed there can be no generosity.
That's the last time I use 'ruminations' sarcastically. I promise.
>What I find ridiculous is that Americans are always so fond of casting these situations as a struggle between good and evil, and of couching their actions in in terms of freedom and protecting human rights. Wigga please.
Well at least we can chalk this all up to a misunderstanding. Obviously, I believed your original post to be mind-numbing and eye-roll inducing, just the type of thing I hear at 'fun parties' all the time. I didn't realize it was in rhetorical jest and if it in fact was, good on you for mocking the intellectually lazy that are drawn to forming uninformed 'opinions'.
Yup. Nixon promised, and well was still fighting a war at the time. Carter delivered. (why didn't Ford? Well I assume because it was a complex issue and had all sorts of logistics to be worked out that can't be captured in a soundbite).
But let's be real here.... " I will not send your boys off to fight and die in any foreign war." referred to the institution of a volunteer military, not an end to the act of war. It is now "Your men and women will chose to fight and die in a foreign war". If someone is not okay with this development, forgive me if the implications lead me to believe that person is a fool.
Re:false alam, John Dvorak quoted in blurb.
on
Break Microsoft Up
·
· Score: 1
Heh, I don't see Dvorak as a master troll, but more like the Toronto Maple Leafs or Kansas City Royals of the journalistic major leagues.
That would be funny, if you weren't simply playing a word association game. Rumsfeld spoke about known unknowns, and was hilarious in his lack of verbal acuity. But I expect this considering how easily I dispatched your shallow ruminations.
I am of course speaking of, conditions and agreements and situations that only become apparent in retrospect, when constraints and other confidential information emerge to help the public form a broader view of a military action. Why is lack of US action in the early years of WWII not on your list?
>So why now? Why not in Rwanda in the 90s? Why not in Burma in the 80s? Hell, why not when Assad Sr bombed the shit out Hama in 1982, killing 20 thousand of his own people?
Rwanda: no geopolitical advantage, UN deployed. NATO already knee deep in Kosovo. Burma: minimal geopolitical advantage, Soviet supported dictator, UN deployed. Cold War active theatre. Syria 1982: Iran/Iraq war, US already propping up Iraq. Act of war crushed Muslim brotherhood which was congruent to US geopolitical strategy in the region (secular Iraq) at the time.
Some of these moral dilemmas have good answers, but political white knights like to throw these reasons away as if "Well we shouldn't have been doing that". So what is it? Is the US limited or unlimited in it's power? Make up your damn minds!
You don't have to be okay with it, but please accept that the world is morally complex and going to war is rarely black and white. Also accept there are things in the present you cannot know.
Re:false alam, John Dvorak quoted in blurb.
on
Break Microsoft Up
·
· Score: 1
But wait, does anyone else see the irony, of slashdot rushing to 'agree' with John Dvorak's assessment?
I joke that I'm a janitor all the time, but someone must've watched Fight Club, because I at least get treated with respect by my 'superiors'.
Honestly, some days I do feel like a janitor, but a janitor *wishes* he could replace himself with a very small shell-script (that thankfully only he would understand).
Reminds me of the Bokonon from Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. I had to look up John Frum, but he did sound familiar to me. Thank you for refreshing my memory.
John Galt is a fictional character who is ironically flawed and may very well have spoken improperly once or twice had he been a real person rather than an allegory for anti-collectivism. He would have though of himself as perfect though, so you get a pass on your pedantry.
Unless of course you are referring to John Galt the scottish novelist and philosopher, which as you quite correctly point, would have employed proper english at all times.
You are probably referring to Plasma Gasification (if it works) would be great for "recyling" hydrocarbons into nothing more than power and slag, minimizing the hydrocarbon's pollution cycle as I like to call it.
I'm sure you have been to college, but it did clearly read:
posted annual 2014 tuition of $3333 x> 4 years that is only 13,333.
I'm sorry, but that's incredibly doable and can be paid 100% for working a decent summer job/internship, or part time year round. Let's say you had to borrow money to live a basic (not bleak) existence on your own. That's 10k rent + 3600 food/entertainment/internet for a year. 26,000 a year, so let's assume you need to borrow because you can't live at your parent's place. That's 13k in loans to cover spartan living expenses for 4 years, That's a manageable student loan of 50k (or one year's entry level graduate salary in many industries). You'll pay 400$ a month for 10years at 5%. Or you know, continue to live your spartan existence for 3 or 4 more years after taxes.
I think if you took Wall Street out of the picture at any large public company, the result would still be the same. I've worked at a few large companies over the years and I've found that budget rules, and if you aren't growing the money isn't flowing at a very macro level. Entire product lines can be killed once they stop making money and this can have some scary effects. I would submit though, that it is often possible to be strategic in a market and still push technology forward. The problem is this is hard to replicate consistently! I'm sure we can all think of a few examples.;)
Maybe if there were more philanthropically inclined capitalists with private companies more things would advance and money wouldn't drive every decision, but then private shareholders can be merciless in their own way.
Today, I said aloud in my cubicle as I watched the rocket liftoff/horizontal/landing, "Oh Elon, please give me a job!"
You make it sound as if everyone has been laid off from IBM and replaced with contractors. I'm sorry to tell you but it's just the positions that no longer provide value.
Slashdot Mirror
Military is not the only way, nor is anyone forced to enlist. I was poor, you don't see me in the marines. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
If only there was enough bread and circus to go around.
>If the US actually cared, they would have been in Rwanda
This is completely illogical. Rwanda had zero geopolitical value, the UN was "peacekeeping" there AND NATO was embroiled in an expensive war in the Balkans at the time.
You have given me hope on an otherwise listless day. You should be skeptical as I am of all four sides in this conflict. There's always something in it for someone. If greed is not good- it is still real; it must exist- for without greed there can be no generosity.
Will try to be more fun at parties in the future.
That's the last time I use 'ruminations' sarcastically. I promise.
>What I find ridiculous is that Americans are always so fond of casting these situations as a struggle between good and evil, and of couching their actions in in terms of freedom and protecting human rights. Wigga please.
Well at least we can chalk this all up to a misunderstanding. Obviously, I believed your original post to be mind-numbing and eye-roll inducing, just the type of thing I hear at 'fun parties' all the time. I didn't realize it was in rhetorical jest and if it in fact was, good on you for mocking the intellectually lazy that are drawn to forming uninformed 'opinions'.
No it wasn't. I'm fairly certain the US abolished conscription after the Vietnam war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#End_of_conscription
Yup. Nixon promised, and well was still fighting a war at the time. Carter delivered. (why didn't Ford? Well I assume because it was a complex issue and had all sorts of logistics to be worked out that can't be captured in a soundbite).
But let's be real here.... " I will not send your boys off to fight and die in any foreign war." referred to the institution of a volunteer military, not an end to the act of war. It is now "Your men and women will chose to fight and die in a foreign war". If someone is not okay with this development, forgive me if the implications lead me to believe that person is a fool.
Heh, I don't see Dvorak as a master troll, but more like the Toronto Maple Leafs or Kansas City Royals of the journalistic major leagues.
That would be funny, if you weren't simply playing a word association game. Rumsfeld spoke about known unknowns, and was hilarious in his lack of verbal acuity. But I expect this considering how easily I dispatched your shallow ruminations.
I am of course speaking of, conditions and agreements and situations that only become apparent in retrospect, when constraints and other confidential information emerge to help the public form a broader view of a military action. Why is lack of US action in the early years of WWII not on your list?
>So why now? Why not in Rwanda in the 90s? Why not in Burma in the 80s? Hell, why not when Assad Sr bombed the shit out Hama in 1982, killing 20 thousand of his own people?
Rwanda: no geopolitical advantage, UN deployed. NATO already knee deep in Kosovo.
Burma: minimal geopolitical advantage, Soviet supported dictator, UN deployed. Cold War active theatre.
Syria 1982: Iran/Iraq war, US already propping up Iraq. Act of war crushed Muslim brotherhood which was congruent to US geopolitical strategy in the region (secular Iraq) at the time.
Some of these moral dilemmas have good answers, but political white knights like to throw these reasons away as if "Well we shouldn't have been doing that". So what is it? Is the US limited or unlimited in it's power? Make up your damn minds!
You don't have to be okay with it, but please accept that the world is morally complex and going to war is rarely black and white. Also accept there are things in the present you cannot know.
But wait, does anyone else see the irony, of slashdot rushing to 'agree' with John Dvorak's assessment?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend? :P
I joke that I'm a janitor all the time, but someone must've watched Fight Club, because I at least get treated with respect by my 'superiors'.
Honestly, some days I do feel like a janitor, but a janitor *wishes* he could replace himself with a very small shell-script (that thankfully only he would understand).
Heck its even a problem if "a male will be at home" while the day care is operating. /former teenage son of a daycare provider.
I don't see this as all that unlikely. Have you been to fark or reddit lately? (hint: they know about slashdot too)
Only said fuck four times not including subject. Not Linus.
Indeed, however in Ottawa they are currently deciding whether to continue another round of financing. Plasco so far has not delivered.
Reminds me of the Bokonon from Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. I had to look up John Frum, but he did sound familiar to me. Thank you for refreshing my memory.
Bokonon if you are interested:
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBokononism&ei=IBwVUpmYOtLE2QWCzICwDQ&usg=AFQjCNE1JyC-V7bAsTC-cRr-VUk8UW3nuQ&bvm=bv.50952593,d.b2I
God damnit, I used WHICH INSTEAD OF WHOM, I have failed :(
John Galt is a fictional character who is ironically flawed and may very well have spoken improperly once or twice had he been a real person rather than an allegory for anti-collectivism. He would have though of himself as perfect though, so you get a pass on your pedantry.
Unless of course you are referring to John Galt the scottish novelist and philosopher, which as you quite correctly point, would have employed proper english at all times.
You are probably referring to Plasma Gasification (if it works) would be great for "recyling" hydrocarbons into nothing more than power and slag, minimizing the hydrocarbon's pollution cycle as I like to call it.
+5 funny on typo. Ice cold /.
Brilliant bullshit detection sir, too bad you are AC! :D
YYMV and anyone saying something different is selling something.
I'm sure you have been to college, but it did clearly read:
posted annual 2014 tuition of $3333 x> 4 years that is only 13,333.
I'm sorry, but that's incredibly doable and can be paid 100% for working a decent summer job/internship, or part time year round. Let's say you had to borrow money to live a basic (not bleak) existence on your own. That's 10k rent + 3600 food/entertainment/internet for a year. 26,000 a year, so let's assume you need to borrow because you can't live at your parent's place. That's 13k in loans to cover spartan living expenses for 4 years, That's a manageable student loan of 50k (or one year's entry level graduate salary in many industries). You'll pay 400$ a month for 10years at 5%. Or you know, continue to live your spartan existence for 3 or 4 more years after taxes.
I think if you took Wall Street out of the picture at any large public company, the result would still be the same. I've worked at a few large companies over the years and I've found that budget rules, and if you aren't growing the money isn't flowing at a very macro level. Entire product lines can be killed once they stop making money and this can have some scary effects. I would submit though, that it is often possible to be strategic in a market and still push technology forward. The problem is this is hard to replicate consistently! I'm sure we can all think of a few examples. ;)
Maybe if there were more philanthropically inclined capitalists with private companies more things would advance and money wouldn't drive every decision, but then private shareholders can be merciless in their own way.
Today, I said aloud in my cubicle as I watched the rocket liftoff/horizontal/landing, "Oh Elon, please give me a job!"
^^ This, there are just some kinks to work out before we get there!
You make it sound as if everyone has been laid off from IBM and replaced with contractors. I'm sorry to tell you but it's just the positions that no longer provide value.