I want an affordable (>$500 2007 dollars), multi-purpose (music / web / email / ebook / addresses), computing device, that isn't tied to being a cell phone.
The UN is required by charter to intervene in ongoing genocides. Unfortunately, none of the UN members actually do anything about it. The UN isn't a bad thing so much as it is pointless--as an institution it accomplishes nothing, although as a forum it is useful.
The worst part about the US going into Iraq is the entire world should have gone. Leaders like Saddam who routinely kill their own people en masse should not be allowed.
What would happen if we tried to enforce this? First, while the world can gang up on Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, we can't do so for Stalin or Mao. Second, the only significant offensive military force that has any sort of moral standing to fight for human rights is NATO, and I don't think NATO conquering the rest of the world is a good thing. (As you may recall, the same group of countries did, collectively, conquer most of the world a long time ago and it didn't turn out well.) The East Asian powers are either human rights violators themselves, or are too weak to even defend themselves against attack without foreign help. African states are often both, as are the Middle Eastern states. Third, war is not exactly preferable to dictatorship, and a world war to destroy all dictatorships would take longer to work than peaceful means. Finally, the US chose Iraqi-occupied Kuwait and later Iraq over Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Syrian-occupied Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Sudan, Chinese-occupied Tibet, and so forth for entirely self-serving reasons. "The world", even if they were as warmongering as the United States, has largely different interests and won't join the US because their interests lie in other cases where they can easily rationalize serving their interests by starting a war. Norway has no reason to lower oil prices by making Iraqi oil available on the open market, Germany has no grudge against Iran because their embassy wasn't taken hostage in 1979, America's currency is too vulnerable to China to join in a war against them, and so forth.
60 years, in a civilization that has been around for millenia? The Communists certainly are a "young" government. Most of the things you point out as happening in the "past" took place well outside the first 60 years of America.
But in terms of human lives, it's the easiest war we've ever had.
That would be the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
At George Soros' direction, it's been called an "Illegal War"
Because it was a violation of international law.
Clinton ignores 492 missile launches against the UN-directed aircraft while enforcing the no-fly zone.
No, in fact, he ordered consistent airstrikes against Iraq during that period.
So, in a move that was as sophisticated as our entry into World War Two when we attacked a friendly nation (Norway, IIRC) after the bombing of Pearl Harbor
Norway fell under German control in 1940. The US entered the war by landing on North Africa, which was occupied by Germany and Vichy France, both of which were hostile powers.
Among the Arab "brothers" there are a few democratic, happy, touristy countries like Monaco and Egypt.
Monaco is a French-speaking, Western European, Christian state. Do you mean Morocco?
So what happens when, a previously screwed up country like Iraq, freed from the bondage of a tyrant, but still desperately Muslim, gets the chance to set it's *own* path? What happens when no one has to have their hands cut off, but instead spends jail time for stealing? And what happens when they're sucessful and happy, right next door to the 'perfect' muslims?
Who knows? Iraq hasn't been successful and happy since long before the US invasion. And you continue to fail history.
That's because it wasn't until 2001 that some of the participants in that civil war killed 3,000 Americans. You're a disgusting little hypocrite--you criticize the US government for aggressing against other countries, but when the other side starts it with a sneak attack, you criticize the US government for not aggressing against that country 25 years before the provocation occurred.
My intent was to express facts, not charm. Murtha is trying to do now what I wish, and perhaps what he wishes, could have been done for him--end a wasteful, ridiculous war.
It was the Republican Nixon, not any Democrat, who left Vietnam. It was the Republican Nixon, not any Democrat, who bombed Cambodia and created the conditions for the Khmer Rouge to flourish.
There is a difference, though. The United States and Britain fought in Europe to restore and rebuild the democracies of Europe. Soviet Russia fought in Europe to conquer and subjugate Europe under communism, and continued its subjugation until 1989.
Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war--in fact, on September 9, 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud, the military leader of one of the warring factions, was killed by suicide bombers, two days before September 11 and almost a month before the US gave air support to Massoud's faction, the Northern Alliance, helping them drive out the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies. The only mistake with Afghanistan was losing our focus and going to Iraq.
The Republic of Iran is a democratically elected theocratic republic.
...in which unelected clerics control the media, the military, and have the power to overrule the policy decisions of the democratically elected president.
I find it a little bit amusing and a little bit sad whenever people rail about "We only have X amount of resource Y left!". It's idiotic. Natural resources don't work that way, as though it's some sort of canteen that we're drinking out of, that suddenly we'll take the last sip from, and that's it. In the real world, it's almost always "We have X amount of resource Y left recoverable at current prices with current technology."
Yes, but there is still a finite amount of resource that exists within the earth, and an even smaller finite amount that can fundamentally be retrieved in a net-positive-energy way, regardless of the tech used.
There is plenty of footage of soldiers taking a sniper hit and getting up and getting to cover and being able to return fire.
[citation needed]
You have to realize that you ARE going to get hit. Being able to take that hit is a big part of surviving an encounter.
Of course you're going to get hit if you stand around wearing 50 pounds of armor and 100 pounds of gear on your back. One thing I find interesting is the focus on "survivability". Mobility has defensive benefits, but it's also vital to actually winning a firefight. Maybe if we focused more on winning wars instead of just surviving them, we would be able to win every now and then.
They're perpetuating the very stereotypes that keep women out of CS departments. They're idiots if they think this will do anything to boost female interest in computer science. Remember when Slashdot switched over to the "OMG Ponies" color scheme, joking that they were trying to increase female readership? This is just like that, except it's not a joke.
Actually, armor is more effective against clubs and swords than it is against firearms. That's why firearms ended the era of the mounted knight. There is no such thing as bulletproof armor, at least not against high-powered rifle rounds. The only way to protect from bullets is cover and concealment, and ultimately to win the firefight. And firefights are won by fire and maneuver.
The support has been so huge, that instead of a small fund-raiser like we were intending, the goal now is to raise enough money for a female scholarship in Computer Science.
Maybe you should raise money for not perpetrating sexist stereotypes. Oh, wait.
Slashdot Mirror
Like a computer?
The UN is required by charter to intervene in ongoing genocides. Unfortunately, none of the UN members actually do anything about it. The UN isn't a bad thing so much as it is pointless--as an institution it accomplishes nothing, although as a forum it is useful.
What would happen if we tried to enforce this? First, while the world can gang up on Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, we can't do so for Stalin or Mao. Second, the only significant offensive military force that has any sort of moral standing to fight for human rights is NATO, and I don't think NATO conquering the rest of the world is a good thing. (As you may recall, the same group of countries did, collectively, conquer most of the world a long time ago and it didn't turn out well.) The East Asian powers are either human rights violators themselves, or are too weak to even defend themselves against attack without foreign help. African states are often both, as are the Middle Eastern states. Third, war is not exactly preferable to dictatorship, and a world war to destroy all dictatorships would take longer to work than peaceful means. Finally, the US chose Iraqi-occupied Kuwait and later Iraq over Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Syrian-occupied Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Sudan, Chinese-occupied Tibet, and so forth for entirely self-serving reasons. "The world", even if they were as warmongering as the United States, has largely different interests and won't join the US because their interests lie in other cases where they can easily rationalize serving their interests by starting a war. Norway has no reason to lower oil prices by making Iraqi oil available on the open market, Germany has no grudge against Iran because their embassy wasn't taken hostage in 1979, America's currency is too vulnerable to China to join in a war against them, and so forth.
60 years, in a civilization that has been around for millenia? The Communists certainly are a "young" government. Most of the things you point out as happening in the "past" took place well outside the first 60 years of America.
Yes, I'm terribly sorry for not including your cherry-picked tangential anecdotes from history in my two line post.
"Look at me! I don't pay attention to the context of a discussion!"
That would be the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
At George Soros' direction, it's been called an "Illegal War"Because it was a violation of international law.
Clinton ignores 492 missile launches against the UN-directed aircraft while enforcing the no-fly zone.No, in fact, he ordered consistent airstrikes against Iraq during that period.
So, in a move that was as sophisticated as our entry into World War Two when we attacked a friendly nation (Norway, IIRC) after the bombing of Pearl HarborNorway fell under German control in 1940. The US entered the war by landing on North Africa, which was occupied by Germany and Vichy France, both of which were hostile powers.
Among the Arab "brothers" there are a few democratic, happy, touristy countries like Monaco and Egypt.Monaco is a French-speaking, Western European, Christian state. Do you mean Morocco?
So what happens when, a previously screwed up country like Iraq, freed from the bondage of a tyrant, but still desperately Muslim, gets the chance to set it's *own* path? What happens when no one has to have their hands cut off, but instead spends jail time for stealing? And what happens when they're sucessful and happy, right next door to the 'perfect' muslims?Who knows? Iraq hasn't been successful and happy since long before the US invasion. And you continue to fail history.
Everyone who's studied this research seriously knows that the proper protocol is to randomize the order.
That's because it wasn't until 2001 that some of the participants in that civil war killed 3,000 Americans. You're a disgusting little hypocrite--you criticize the US government for aggressing against other countries, but when the other side starts it with a sneak attack, you criticize the US government for not aggressing against that country 25 years before the provocation occurred.
My intent was to express facts, not charm. Murtha is trying to do now what I wish, and perhaps what he wishes, could have been done for him--end a wasteful, ridiculous war.
Every time I try that, I spend the rest of the day in a foggy-headed state of total disassociation from the environment around me. Then again, I'm 22.
Good. I don't want my country run by people who have to be browbeaten into participating.
It was the Republican Nixon, not any Democrat, who left Vietnam. It was the Republican Nixon, not any Democrat, who bombed Cambodia and created the conditions for the Khmer Rouge to flourish.
There is a difference, though. The United States and Britain fought in Europe to restore and rebuild the democracies of Europe. Soviet Russia fought in Europe to conquer and subjugate Europe under communism, and continued its subjugation until 1989.
Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war--in fact, on September 9, 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud, the military leader of one of the warring factions, was killed by suicide bombers, two days before September 11 and almost a month before the US gave air support to Massoud's faction, the Northern Alliance, helping them drive out the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies. The only mistake with Afghanistan was losing our focus and going to Iraq.
...in which unelected clerics control the media, the military, and have the power to overrule the policy decisions of the democratically elected president.
Yes, but there is still a finite amount of resource that exists within the earth, and an even smaller finite amount that can fundamentally be retrieved in a net-positive-energy way, regardless of the tech used.
That's definitely my favorite SimCity tactic.
And how many rounds will it stop?
[citation needed]
You have to realize that you ARE going to get hit. Being able to take that hit is a big part of surviving an encounter.Of course you're going to get hit if you stand around wearing 50 pounds of armor and 100 pounds of gear on your back. One thing I find interesting is the focus on "survivability". Mobility has defensive benefits, but it's also vital to actually winning a firefight. Maybe if we focused more on winning wars instead of just surviving them, we would be able to win every now and then.
They're perpetuating the very stereotypes that keep women out of CS departments. They're idiots if they think this will do anything to boost female interest in computer science. Remember when Slashdot switched over to the "OMG Ponies" color scheme, joking that they were trying to increase female readership? This is just like that, except it's not a joke.
Actually, armor is more effective against clubs and swords than it is against firearms. That's why firearms ended the era of the mounted knight. There is no such thing as bulletproof armor, at least not against high-powered rifle rounds. The only way to protect from bullets is cover and concealment, and ultimately to win the firefight. And firefights are won by fire and maneuver.
2 for 3. Armor adds weight, weight hinders mobility, and mobility protects you better than armor.
Maybe you should raise money for not perpetrating sexist stereotypes. Oh, wait.
Isn't it funny how many highly-moderated posts complain about the Slashdot groupthink? Why doesn't the groupthink mod them down?