To be fair to your classmates, you did say it was an INTRODUCTORY course in C++. Therefore, I would expect people who don't know any programming. If this was a second year course or something, I can see your point. But intro? When I took computer engineering in university (Canada), many in the first year intro programming didn't know programming. Not all Canadian high schools have programming courses and they are not required by universities either. In addition, my intro course had all engineering students (including chem, mech, civil, etc). If yours was like that, one would definitely expect people who don't know much about programming or computers. Introductory programming courses in comp sci is generally similar (instead of having engineering students you may have other science students (eg. physics, chemistry, etc)).
I don't think the point was about simply opening a PC and LOOKING at it. Rather, it was about knowing what is inside the PC. What's the point of opening up a PC and not knowing what's inside it? So a better analogy is: how many mechanical engineers can fix cars or know what is inside of it? Not many. However, a mechanic, as opposed to a mechanical engineer, will know aobut the inside of a car.
With comp sci/engineering, it's the same thing. You don't need to know what's inside the computer because most people don't fix computers. Fixing computers is generally left to technicians. However, what you DO need to know is how the components work and how to design something.
I don't know how people pass computer science/engineering without knowing what virtual memory....so you have a point there. However, I don't think computer science majors need to open up a PC. Unless you are a technician or perhaps a system administrator, I don't see what the inside of a PC has to do with anything. The vast majority of jobs (ranging from simple coding jobs, to full scale software development, to architecture) don't really require any knowledge of the inside of a computer*. I'll bet you that all the top programmers and architects, working in companies such as Intel, to well respected open-source developers, don't know anything about the inside of a computer.
The requirement that you place on computer science/engineering grads is almost like dissing mechanical engineers because they don't know how the inside of a car works. I'll bet all the top mechanical engineers designing top-end cars like Ferrari down to your popular Honda Accord, don't know much about the inside of the car. They likely won't even be able to fix simple car problems than a car fan might be able to.
See... the thing is... Computer Engineering, for example, isn't about what's inside the computer. Rather, it's about how to design a computer (eg. memory, bus, cpu, etc), among other things. Computer Science is somewhat similar. To see why you are wrong, consider this. According to your view, is a computer engineer like me (at least in degree (unemployed though:( )) somehow superior to a computer science guy because comp eng grads know far more about the hardware? Not really!
(* When I say inside of a computer I'm talking about the parts and stuff (eg. Nvidia video card vs ATI; IDE hard drives vs SCSI; etc). Obviously you need to know the components of a computer (eg. CPU, memory, etc)).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Business is politics! This is especially true the higher you climb up the career ladder. Professionals will run into it and others higher up will face even greater problems. Executives, for instance, are almost always hired due to some political factor. Corporations will pass this off as "interpersonal skills" but it is nothing more than 'keeping your mouth shut and not criticizing your superiors'. There is nothing worse than criticizing someone higher up, even if your argument is technically sound.
I didn't see any spelling problems (wasn't reading carefully though). Also, I don't know how you can tell if someone can write well when they are writing in a casual manner using ellipses on a message board of little consequence. I imagine if he/she was writing an important document, he/she will check it more carefully, run it through the spellcheker, etc. What you are doing is akin to judging someone's verbal skills by reading IRC logs.
Lastly, and most importantly, I don't know why you would base a technical hiring decision on writing skills. If you won't hire a coder that can't write that well (and this guy isn't bad by any stretch), does that mean that you will hire someone who can write well but can't program very well?
This is not surprising. The US government has indicated pretty openly that they are going to militarize space. Their future Star Wars program, which will start rolling once the Missile Shield is "successful", will necessarily involve militarization of space.
Recent attempts by Bush administration to reshape NASA is also consistent with this space goal.
I have always claimed that the UN will collapse* if USA militarizes space. We'll see if I'm right.
(* If you wonder why I think this, it is because of human behaviour. When USA militarizes space, it will most likely start claiming territory on the moon, mars, etc as its own. This is pretty consistent with human behaviour over time (just think of colonization, circa 1500's/1600's/etc). Whoever that has power in space will have power over territory in space. This is true if human behaviour is the same as in the past (i.e. warmongering territorial animals)--I don't see why it be any different since humans stopped evolving tens of thousands of years ago. This will mean that the UN has no say in territory disputes in space, and the UN will have no power to promote peace. Once that happens, there is no point of having the UN. People always mistakenly assume that the most important elements of the UN are things like WHO, WTO, UNICEF, UNHCR, and so forth, but the truth of the matter is, UN is primarily a body that is responsible for territories (ie. borders of countries).... On a different note, I also have a hypothesis that the UN will collapse right before WWIII--just like how the League of Nations collapses just before WWII. This has nothing to do with militarization of space. )
If governments identify people via ID, I don't know why they wouldn't force people to carry them. In such a case, you can go with what the original poster said: always say you don't have it.
As a nitpick, I think USA DOES force people to carry ID (although it is under certain circumstances). For instance, if you are driving a car, aren't you forced to carry a driver's license? Last time I checked, driver's license is an ID--in fact, one of the most popular ID devices. Granted, this is only if you are driving so your point is correct for the most part.
I personally never state that the US helped the Taliban; I usually state that the US helped Al-Qaida (in particular Usama bin Laden).
As far as Usama bin Laden is concerned, I don't see how you can say he wasn't part of the mujahedeen. Are you referring to the fact that he wasn't really a fighter (more of a logistics provider i.e. built buildings)? I would personally consider him a mujahedeen because he was in the thick of it. I don't know if he shot anyone but he was armed, wore camouflage, etc. In any case, mujahedeen are holy warriors. Usama bin Laden would have been considered a holy warrior at that time. So either way, I don't think you can claim he wasn't.
Maybe we're not really disagreeing with each other.
We are not really disagreeing much. All our disagreement is over a fuzzy line. I suppose EVERYTHING is subjective in some sense.
North Korea is totalitarian and Zimbabwe is not? What about Haiti?
North Korea doesn't even have independent courts, or anything independent. Since countries like Zimbabwe and Haiti do, I would not classify them as totalitarian. Although, at the rate that Zimbabwe is going, it will be one very soon.
For example, even though the UK (where I live) is not technically a democracy, with all executive power being exercised in the name of the monarch, it is generally held that QE2 "could" never actually dissolve parliament and take over power herself, even though it is theoretically in her power. (Not that I'm happy with that situation myself, I think the monarchy should be gotten rid of.)
I HATE monarchy. It is a horrible system. Although countries like Britain aren't exactly "true" monarchies. I come from Canada and it's the same issue. I wish Canada would dump the monarchy. I hope you guys don't get mad if we DO dump the monarchy at some point--nothing against the British but the Queen/King has got to go. My problem with monarchy isn't so much about corruption or power, but rather the fact that it is elitist! The monarch and her/his family gets priviledges that a typical citizen doesn't. I am an inferior to a monarch, just like you are. Your children are inferior to the monarch's children. For example, when your Queen comes over to Canada, we spend millions on her. Her family stays in nice mansions, get VIP status, etc. That is just plain wrong! It's just too bad people support it:( Having said that, the British monarchy will dissapear soon IMO. With all the scandals and stuff, I'm surprised the British haven't dumped them yet. All I know is that when Charles becomes the head, that might be the end.;)
As far as whether the monarchy really has power, I think they do. Right now, they have very little. However, if someone goes wrong (say Britain declines and becomes a corrupt state), the monarch will seize power. This is pretty much the trend (one can look through history or even some modern countries like Nepal). Monarchs who were weak at one time, all of a sudden start ruling with an iron fist when the opportunity comes.
And a simple I don't have one, or a simple I left it at home...
Lying would get you in more trouble than anything. Unless you actually did not carry any ID, this could cause problems. This depends on the laws. Governments that use ID to identify people generally force people to carry them. If you don't carry it, it's jail/fine. Lying around it won't do anything. Of course, this is only in the case where the government legally requires you to carry IDs.
Regardless, I believe the case is that Nevada DOES require it. Simple enough. The state has a right to establish such in law, the federal government does not.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether the goverment has the right or not. In general, any government can do ANYTHING if they chose to. History is a very good at illustrating that. Therfore, the point is always whether a government--of any type--SHOULD do it.
I have no wants and warrants. I produce my ID when asked because it is often the quickest way to get around these issues. If I don't have it with me, I don't act in a belligerent or aggressive manner. I've never had a problem, even though I have been asked to produce it and not had it on me. Probably because I didn't act like an over testosterone'd ass.
That's irrelevant. Last time I checked, morality, ethics, and justice, are not based on people's personalities. Sure, it helps to be nice but the police--or for that matter anyone--should use that as a judgement against another. Whether someone is an "over testosterone'd ass";) or not, it doesn't matter.
The fact that you have had no problem in the past, or whether you WANT the government to identify you, is just one stance. There are millions who support your view. I know many of them personally. In fact, I would argue that the majority of the population will easily succumb to any government desire, such as weakening liberties, with enough propaganda. Fortunately for me, there are also many who do not support your stance. Namely, people who do not believe the government should ID someone for seemingly whatever reason they cook up. This battle between security and liberty is nothing new. The battle has been going on for ages. As a matter of fact, this battle will be fought out in the open with millions against each other (not violently hopefully) in the near future. The path USA has taken on the "war" on terrorism will necessarily mean that there will be major conflicts between security and liberty in the near future. The Patriot Act is simply a first step. The second one, "Patriot Act II", is more in line with what I'm talking about (because Patriot Act I mostly deals with non-citizens).
It's not just USA either. My own government (Canada) has been moving on that front as well. Senior government officials have proposed plans for everyone to carry ID tags. That plan was shot down so I'm not sure what happened (I doubt it died though...it's probably cooking in the background somewhere). Although, if I'm not mistaken, Canada did manage to pass a law which requires landed immigrants to carry ID at all times (actually, I can't remember if this went through parliament...I think it did).
At any rate, I will argue your point that the only mujahedeen influences left are manifested in al Qaeda.
I am not arguing that the mujahedeen are left ONLY in Al-Qaida. Rather, many members of the mujahedeen are in Al-Qaida, including Usama bin Laden. I agree with you that some mujahedeen joined the Northern Alliance, while some joined the Taliban.
Unless you claim that USA did not help these mujahedeen that joined Al-Qaida or Taliban, you cannot claim that USA didn't help them no more than you can claim they helped the Northern Alliance.
Nonsense. I didn't invent representative democracy. Ideas such as universal suffrage and separation of powers have been around for centuries. I'm not making anything up.
Yes but I'm talking about cases where those institutions exist but are corrupted. I am not talking about totalitarians (eg. USSR) calling themselves republic; I'm talking about a corrupted republic calling themselves republic. The latter should be called a republic. A country that has courts, different branches of government, senate, etc should be called a republic (or whatever is appropriate) EVEN if they are corrupted. I think the naming should only be discarded if those institutions were abolished.
What I said about prolonged single-party rule being bad. But the opposition COULD have gotten into power - they weren't being tortured in jail, just not enough people voted for them.
See... that's the problem. You are saying a party COULD get into power. That's YOUR observation. How is one supposed to know? What exactly does "could" mean? If you met a neutral person, you would have a hard time explaining how a country where one party dominates (say USA) is a republic while another country with a similar situation but with corruption, isn't a republic.
Your argument is similar to arguing that Bolivia, for example, is not a democracy (because it is highly corrupt), while Mexico is. Both of these should be called "democracies" or democracy-like. Same thing with republics or any other political system.
Laws can be proven. The reason is because they are generally mathematical properties. Unless you claim mathematics is wrong (no one does that, except religious people), all laws are correct within the constraints of the law. Sometimes things get labelled a "law" when in fact it isn't. An example would be Moore's Law in computer science/engineering. This is not a law even though it is called one.
The conservation of energy/mass is correct. When mass seems to dissapear, it gets converted to energy. Therefore, the original law is still correct (if you go with the view that mass and energy are the same thing).
The only way you can say a law is wrong is if:
You claim that mathematics is wrong. That is, you don't believe in a logical framework like mathematics. Nearly all theists (i.e. religious people) follow this path.
Or if you apply the law outside the constraints in which it was formulated. For example, 1+1=2 may be flase if you use a different number system. BUT if you stick within the constraint (the constraint being a real number system), it is correct.
If you do not follow either path above, you CAN prove things. Just like how you can prove 1+1=2, you can prove the law of entropy (for example). You don't even need to make any observations.
Thus there is no absolute known "truth" in any science.
Laws are the absolute truth. At least, that's how you would view things if you follow the scientific path. In other words, if you follow a rational path, with logic, a law is true. If you are irrational (eg. religious) or if you do not subscribe to logic (some people don't), then you can argue a law isn't true.
Stating an "irrefutable fact" is, again by definition, unscientific (see for a start the works of Karl Popper).
But all laws ARE irrefutable facts. The reason is because they are mathematically proven.
All we can "prove" is the consistency of different sets of rules, according to yet another set of rules (arithmetics, logic, etc). That's where math comes in: in showing consistency. But it doesn't tell us anything about "reality".
But science IS mathematics. You cannot have science without mathematics. Mathematics is what gives science its logical framework. Science is nothing more than modelling the world via mathematics. Therefore, if you prove something in mathematics, it is proven in science--that's what scientific laws are.
Face it: science is not about "knowing what's really going on". It's just about producing "good guesses" about expected effects. Math is an exception here: it does not even try to tell us anything about reality, it works entirely on trying to show consequences and consistencies according to specific sets of rules and axioms (which are called "theories" or "calculus" (in the broader sense)).
Yes, science is simply an attempt at guessing, or modelling, our world. But since it involves maths, there WILL be some things that CAN be proven. I'm not saying all of it is; but some of it is. I would say 99.99% of science is theories and hypotheses but there is a tiny percentage that are laws.
Historically speaking, those that we aided in Afghanistan against the USSR were mostly what became the "Northern Alliance".
That's a lie. The Nothern Alliance came out of Iranian backed groups. What the US supported were called mujahedeen and they were mainly foreigners from other countries (usually Middle East but also Asia). The mujahedeen have mostly retired now (they are too old) but a few are still carrying on their vision in the name of Al-Qaida. If anything, USA probably helped the Taliban more (by providing funds to Pakistan ISI) than the Northern Alliance.
The Northern Alliance is still a "northern" group. Even now, Iran has more influence over it than USA.
Of course, if you go with the official US government view, they were never involved in anything. US govt involvement in Afghanistan in the past is simply dismissed as a left-wing conspiracy theory.
I was thinking more of the actual communist organizations....but even with the communes, it probably started in Europe. I'm not 100% sure but I think Europeans would have tried these things before Americans. Europe was far more progressive at that time.
Good point... but I still don't buy it. I don't think the free markets of capitalism will be as free as you imply. I can only see things being totally free under anarchism. Even under pure capitalism, there will necessarily be restrictions. For instance, will pure capitalism allow someone to sell food that is poisonous? I doubt it. I haven't see any capitalists claim that their system will allow people to deceive consumers and pass off dangerous products.
Censorship (or banning of products that are against "national interest") will be similar I think. The government (however small) or society will simply pass these things off as evil or dangerous and hence they won't be produced. Decisions in Singapore are pretty much made by society. I think that would be consistent with capitalism. I'm not a capitalist so I am not 100% sure. If Singapore isn't capitalist what is it then? It surely isn't socialist or merchantilist or anything I can think of.
I'm not in USA (I'm in Canada:) ) so I don't face these things in real life. But whenever I go on message boards, or something, it is always the same. Conservatives always red-bait (i.e. accuse you of being a supporter of Stalin's atrocities), accuse everyone on the left of anti-Americanism (whatever that means), and so forth.
You may not agree but the essence of McCarthyism is still there. This will become more evident with the bogus "war" on terrorism.
As far as Hannity & Colmes are concerned, I don't get Fox up here but from what I know of it (from a left-wing perspective), Colmes isn't much of a leftist. No one on Fox is.
Germany wasn't considered a republic after Hitler was voted into office - but he made no pretensions towards it, of course, and even changed the name of the country to reflect it.
I don't want to get into this but very little changed in Germany. The institutions that existed before (eg. courts, etc) were the "same" under Hitler. Hitler was an authoratarian and did things (eg. stacked the court in his favour) but overall, very little changed.
THe problem with your view is that YOU are making up the criteria. Propagandists and governments can simply use their own criteria to demonize whoever they want and change definitions as they see fit. Already, governments like USA do that but it will be worse under your scenario. For instance, consider what you said:
Maybe a more practical test is whether the opposition can get into power.
What does that mean? That is to say, how is someone supposed to figure out if opposition can get into power. If one party dominates for a long time, is it all of a sudden a dictatorship of some sort? USA was ruled by one party for long stretches of time (eg. after USA was founded, the US President came from one party, called Democratic-Republican Party (except for one year)). Japan has been ruled by one party since WWII (though they lost in the late 90's or early 2000's I think). What exactly is Japan?
I still think the political name should stay the same as long as the political structure exists. As long as there are courts, elections, and so forth (however bogus), the country should rightly be called a republic (if it is one). These countries aren't democratic but their political structure is the same.
As far as I know, those theories have been observed as far back as the 70's. So x-rays being emitted by infalling gases and other similar phenomenon have been proven.
Having said that, the doubt over black holes mainly comes from the fact that you can only observe indirect evidence. For example, the X-rays are being emitted not by the black hole but by things outside it. People who doubt the exitence of black holes say that this isn't sufficient proof.
Overall, my impression is that the scientific community pretty much accepts black holes these days. As Kip Thorne remarked in his book, scientists are 90% sure of the exitence of black holes (as of mid 90's). Where scientists disagree is what happens inside a black hole (also, people disagree about things like time travel, or other "crazy" theories).
This development of Black Holes on the planet poses big questions about the dangers and risks involved in handling Black Holes. If one gets out of control, it could potentially "eat" through our planet in no time.
I'm not an astrophysist but I have been reading some books on this recently (books for layperson that is). I don't think the black holes in question will eat through earth. The horizon of the black hole will be VERY VERY small. Anything far away from it (which is where most of the mass on earth will be) should be fine. As far as I know, black hole horizons do not increase in size (only exception is when multiple black holes coalesce into one). So, if my understanding is correct, the size of the black hole will not get any larger--even if mass is sucked in.
The only real danger I see is some government creating a weapon out of it. If someone can create a "bomb" from a black hole, it will make nuclear weapons look like a joke. That's really the main danger IMO. Having said that, black holes are very hard to manipulate (it will probably take humans 1,000 years to master them). So no one can really use them as weapons per se. If someone creates a black hole, it will just sit there. We don't have the capability (or even the theory necessary) to move them.
Small correction (before I get flamed)... black holes don't allow time travel. Rather wormholes do (wormholes are two black holes connected together)... also, it is not clear if time travel is allowed by the laws of science
Most science isn't empirical evidence alone. There is also mathematics involved. So you CAN prove SOME things. The things you can prove are called laws. These laws are usually just mathematical properties (eg. conservation of mass). In any case, what you said is correct: THEORIES cannot be proven.
I like hte idea of a black hole too... because it allows time travel--maybe:) Here's hoping that time travel is possible:)
What is you are saying is blatantly false. Unless you are cooking up your own definition of capitalism, capitalism says nothing of politics. Capitalism is an economic system! You can practice it with a democracy (politics) or totalitarianism (politics). Government banning speech has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is solely based on free markets and private property (and a few other little details). In other words, capitalism is an economic system.
A good example of a totalitarian capitalism at work is Singapore.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair to your classmates, you did say it was an INTRODUCTORY course in C++. Therefore, I would expect people who don't know any programming. If this was a second year course or something, I can see your point. But intro? When I took computer engineering in university (Canada), many in the first year intro programming didn't know programming. Not all Canadian high schools have programming courses and they are not required by universities either. In addition, my intro course had all engineering students (including chem, mech, civil, etc). If yours was like that, one would definitely expect people who don't know much about programming or computers. Introductory programming courses in comp sci is generally similar (instead of having engineering students you may have other science students (eg. physics, chemistry, etc)).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think the point was about simply opening a PC and LOOKING at it. Rather, it was about knowing what is inside the PC. What's the point of opening up a PC and not knowing what's inside it? So a better analogy is: how many mechanical engineers can fix cars or know what is inside of it? Not many. However, a mechanic, as opposed to a mechanical engineer, will know aobut the inside of a car.
With comp sci/engineering, it's the same thing. You don't need to know what's inside the computer because most people don't fix computers. Fixing computers is generally left to technicians. However, what you DO need to know is how the components work and how to design something.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know how people pass computer science/engineering without knowing what virtual memory....so you have a point there. However, I don't think computer science majors need to open up a PC. Unless you are a technician or perhaps a system administrator, I don't see what the inside of a PC has to do with anything. The vast majority of jobs (ranging from simple coding jobs, to full scale software development, to architecture) don't really require any knowledge of the inside of a computer*. I'll bet you that all the top programmers and architects, working in companies such as Intel, to well respected open-source developers, don't know anything about the inside of a computer.
:( )) somehow superior to a computer science guy because comp eng grads know far more about the hardware? Not really!
The requirement that you place on computer science/engineering grads is almost like dissing mechanical engineers because they don't know how the inside of a car works. I'll bet all the top mechanical engineers designing top-end cars like Ferrari down to your popular Honda Accord, don't know much about the inside of the car. They likely won't even be able to fix simple car problems than a car fan might be able to.
See... the thing is... Computer Engineering, for example, isn't about what's inside the computer. Rather, it's about how to design a computer (eg. memory, bus, cpu, etc), among other things. Computer Science is somewhat similar. To see why you are wrong, consider this. According to your view, is a computer engineer like me (at least in degree (unemployed though
(* When I say inside of a computer I'm talking about the parts and stuff (eg. Nvidia video card vs ATI; IDE hard drives vs SCSI; etc). Obviously you need to know the components of a computer (eg. CPU, memory, etc)). Sivaram Velauthapillai
Business is politics! This is especially true the higher you climb up the career ladder. Professionals will run into it and others higher up will face even greater problems. Executives, for instance, are almost always hired due to some political factor. Corporations will pass this off as "interpersonal skills" but it is nothing more than 'keeping your mouth shut and not criticizing your superiors'. There is nothing worse than criticizing someone higher up, even if your argument is technically sound.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I didn't see any spelling problems (wasn't reading carefully though). Also, I don't know how you can tell if someone can write well when they are writing in a casual manner using ellipses on a message board of little consequence. I imagine if he/she was writing an important document, he/she will check it more carefully, run it through the spellcheker, etc. What you are doing is akin to judging someone's verbal skills by reading IRC logs.
Lastly, and most importantly, I don't know why you would base a technical hiring decision on writing skills. If you won't hire a coder that can't write that well (and this guy isn't bad by any stretch), does that mean that you will hire someone who can write well but can't program very well?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is not surprising. The US government has indicated pretty openly that they are going to militarize space. Their future Star Wars program, which will start rolling once the Missile Shield is "successful", will necessarily involve militarization of space.
Recent attempts by Bush administration to reshape NASA is also consistent with this space goal.
I have always claimed that the UN will collapse* if USA militarizes space. We'll see if I'm right.
(* If you wonder why I think this, it is because of human behaviour. When USA militarizes space, it will most likely start claiming territory on the moon, mars, etc as its own. This is pretty consistent with human behaviour over time (just think of colonization, circa 1500's/1600's/etc). Whoever that has power in space will have power over territory in space. This is true if human behaviour is the same as in the past (i.e. warmongering territorial animals)--I don't see why it be any different since humans stopped evolving tens of thousands of years ago. This will mean that the UN has no say in territory disputes in space, and the UN will have no power to promote peace. Once that happens, there is no point of having the UN. People always mistakenly assume that the most important elements of the UN are things like WHO, WTO, UNICEF, UNHCR, and so forth, but the truth of the matter is, UN is primarily a body that is responsible for territories (ie. borders of countries).... On a different note, I also have a hypothesis that the UN will collapse right before WWIII--just like how the League of Nations collapses just before WWII. This has nothing to do with militarization of space. )
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If governments identify people via ID, I don't know why they wouldn't force people to carry them. In such a case, you can go with what the original poster said: always say you don't have it.
As a nitpick, I think USA DOES force people to carry ID (although it is under certain circumstances). For instance, if you are driving a car, aren't you forced to carry a driver's license? Last time I checked, driver's license is an ID--in fact, one of the most popular ID devices. Granted, this is only if you are driving so your point is correct for the most part.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I personally never state that the US helped the Taliban; I usually state that the US helped Al-Qaida (in particular Usama bin Laden).
As far as Usama bin Laden is concerned, I don't see how you can say he wasn't part of the mujahedeen. Are you referring to the fact that he wasn't really a fighter (more of a logistics provider i.e. built buildings)? I would personally consider him a mujahedeen because he was in the thick of it. I don't know if he shot anyone but he was armed, wore camouflage, etc. In any case, mujahedeen are holy warriors. Usama bin Laden would have been considered a holy warrior at that time. So either way, I don't think you can claim he wasn't.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Maybe we're not really disagreeing with each other.
:( Having said that, the British monarchy will dissapear soon IMO. With all the scandals and stuff, I'm surprised the British haven't dumped them yet. All I know is that when Charles becomes the head, that might be the end. ;)
We are not really disagreeing much. All our disagreement is over a fuzzy line. I suppose EVERYTHING is subjective in some sense.
North Korea is totalitarian and Zimbabwe is not? What about Haiti?
North Korea doesn't even have independent courts, or anything independent. Since countries like Zimbabwe and Haiti do, I would not classify them as totalitarian. Although, at the rate that Zimbabwe is going, it will be one very soon.
For example, even though the UK (where I live) is not technically a democracy, with all executive power being exercised in the name of the monarch, it is generally held that QE2 "could" never actually dissolve parliament and take over power herself, even though it is theoretically in her power. (Not that I'm happy with that situation myself, I think the monarchy should be gotten rid of.)
I HATE monarchy. It is a horrible system. Although countries like Britain aren't exactly "true" monarchies. I come from Canada and it's the same issue. I wish Canada would dump the monarchy. I hope you guys don't get mad if we DO dump the monarchy at some point--nothing against the British but the Queen/King has got to go. My problem with monarchy isn't so much about corruption or power, but rather the fact that it is elitist! The monarch and her/his family gets priviledges that a typical citizen doesn't. I am an inferior to a monarch, just like you are. Your children are inferior to the monarch's children. For example, when your Queen comes over to Canada, we spend millions on her. Her family stays in nice mansions, get VIP status, etc. That is just plain wrong! It's just too bad people support it
As far as whether the monarchy really has power, I think they do. Right now, they have very little. However, if someone goes wrong (say Britain declines and becomes a corrupt state), the monarch will seize power. This is pretty much the trend (one can look through history or even some modern countries like Nepal). Monarchs who were weak at one time, all of a sudden start ruling with an iron fist when the opportunity comes.
Sivaram Velauthapillai A
And a simple I don't have one, or a simple I left it at home...
;) or not, it doesn't matter.
Lying would get you in more trouble than anything. Unless you actually did not carry any ID, this could cause problems. This depends on the laws. Governments that use ID to identify people generally force people to carry them. If you don't carry it, it's jail/fine. Lying around it won't do anything. Of course, this is only in the case where the government legally requires you to carry IDs.
Regardless, I believe the case is that Nevada DOES require it. Simple enough. The state has a right to establish such in law, the federal government does not.
I don't think anyone is arguing whether the goverment has the right or not. In general, any government can do ANYTHING if they chose to. History is a very good at illustrating that. Therfore, the point is always whether a government--of any type--SHOULD do it.
I have no wants and warrants. I produce my ID when asked because it is often the quickest way to get around these issues. If I don't have it with me, I don't act in a belligerent or aggressive manner. I've never had a problem, even though I have been asked to produce it and not had it on me. Probably because I didn't act like an over testosterone'd ass.
That's irrelevant. Last time I checked, morality, ethics, and justice, are not based on people's personalities. Sure, it helps to be nice but the police--or for that matter anyone--should use that as a judgement against another. Whether someone is an "over testosterone'd ass"
The fact that you have had no problem in the past, or whether you WANT the government to identify you, is just one stance. There are millions who support your view. I know many of them personally. In fact, I would argue that the majority of the population will easily succumb to any government desire, such as weakening liberties, with enough propaganda. Fortunately for me, there are also many who do not support your stance. Namely, people who do not believe the government should ID someone for seemingly whatever reason they cook up. This battle between security and liberty is nothing new. The battle has been going on for ages. As a matter of fact, this battle will be fought out in the open with millions against each other (not violently hopefully) in the near future. The path USA has taken on the "war" on terrorism will necessarily mean that there will be major conflicts between security and liberty in the near future. The Patriot Act is simply a first step. The second one, "Patriot Act II", is more in line with what I'm talking about (because Patriot Act I mostly deals with non-citizens).
It's not just USA either. My own government (Canada) has been moving on that front as well. Senior government officials have proposed plans for everyone to carry ID tags. That plan was shot down so I'm not sure what happened (I doubt it died though...it's probably cooking in the background somewhere). Although, if I'm not mistaken, Canada did manage to pass a law which requires landed immigrants to carry ID at all times (actually, I can't remember if this went through parliament...I think it did).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
At any rate, I will argue your point that the only mujahedeen influences left are manifested in al Qaeda.
I am not arguing that the mujahedeen are left ONLY in Al-Qaida. Rather, many members of the mujahedeen are in Al-Qaida, including Usama bin Laden. I agree with you that some mujahedeen joined the Northern Alliance, while some joined the Taliban.
Unless you claim that USA did not help these mujahedeen that joined Al-Qaida or Taliban, you cannot claim that USA didn't help them no more than you can claim they helped the Northern Alliance.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Nonsense. I didn't invent representative democracy. Ideas such as universal suffrage and separation of powers have been around for centuries. I'm not making anything up.
Yes but I'm talking about cases where those institutions exist but are corrupted. I am not talking about totalitarians (eg. USSR) calling themselves republic; I'm talking about a corrupted republic calling themselves republic. The latter should be called a republic. A country that has courts, different branches of government, senate, etc should be called a republic (or whatever is appropriate) EVEN if they are corrupted. I think the naming should only be discarded if those institutions were abolished.
What I said about prolonged single-party rule being bad. But the opposition COULD have gotten into power - they weren't being tortured in jail, just not enough people voted for them.
See... that's the problem. You are saying a party COULD get into power. That's YOUR observation. How is one supposed to know? What exactly does "could" mean? If you met a neutral person, you would have a hard time explaining how a country where one party dominates (say USA) is a republic while another country with a similar situation but with corruption, isn't a republic.
Your argument is similar to arguing that Bolivia, for example, is not a democracy (because it is highly corrupt), while Mexico is. Both of these should be called "democracies" or democracy-like. Same thing with republics or any other political system.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The conservation of energy/mass is correct. When mass seems to dissapear, it gets converted to energy. Therefore, the original law is still correct (if you go with the view that mass and energy are the same thing).
The only way you can say a law is wrong is if:
If you do not follow either path above, you CAN prove things. Just like how you can prove 1+1=2, you can prove the law of entropy (for example). You don't even need to make any observations.
Thus there is no absolute known "truth" in any science.
Laws are the absolute truth. At least, that's how you would view things if you follow the scientific path. In other words, if you follow a rational path, with logic, a law is true. If you are irrational (eg. religious) or if you do not subscribe to logic (some people don't), then you can argue a law isn't true.
Stating an "irrefutable fact" is, again by definition, unscientific (see for a start the works of Karl Popper).
But all laws ARE irrefutable facts. The reason is because they are mathematically proven.
All we can "prove" is the consistency of different sets of rules, according to yet another set of rules (arithmetics, logic, etc). That's where math comes in: in showing consistency. But it doesn't tell us anything about "reality".
But science IS mathematics. You cannot have science without mathematics. Mathematics is what gives science its logical framework. Science is nothing more than modelling the world via mathematics. Therefore, if you prove something in mathematics, it is proven in science--that's what scientific laws are.
Face it: science is not about "knowing what's really going on". It's just about producing "good guesses" about expected effects. Math is an exception here: it does not even try to tell us anything about reality, it works entirely on trying to show consequences and consistencies according to specific sets of rules and axioms (which are called "theories" or "calculus" (in the broader sense)).
Yes, science is simply an attempt at guessing, or modelling, our world. But since it involves maths, there WILL be some things that CAN be proven. I'm not saying all of it is; but some of it is. I would say 99.99% of science is theories and hypotheses but there is a tiny percentage that are laws.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Historically speaking, those that we aided in Afghanistan against the USSR were mostly what became the "Northern Alliance".
That's a lie. The Nothern Alliance came out of Iranian backed groups. What the US supported were called mujahedeen and they were mainly foreigners from other countries (usually Middle East but also Asia). The mujahedeen have mostly retired now (they are too old) but a few are still carrying on their vision in the name of Al-Qaida. If anything, USA probably helped the Taliban more (by providing funds to Pakistan ISI) than the Northern Alliance.
The Northern Alliance is still a "northern" group. Even now, Iran has more influence over it than USA.
Of course, if you go with the official US government view, they were never involved in anything. US govt involvement in Afghanistan in the past is simply dismissed as a left-wing conspiracy theory.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I was thinking more of the actual communist organizations....but even with the communes, it probably started in Europe. I'm not 100% sure but I think Europeans would have tried these things before Americans. Europe was far more progressive at that time.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Good point... but I still don't buy it. I don't think the free markets of capitalism will be as free as you imply. I can only see things being totally free under anarchism. Even under pure capitalism, there will necessarily be restrictions. For instance, will pure capitalism allow someone to sell food that is poisonous? I doubt it. I haven't see any capitalists claim that their system will allow people to deceive consumers and pass off dangerous products.
Censorship (or banning of products that are against "national interest") will be similar I think. The government (however small) or society will simply pass these things off as evil or dangerous and hence they won't be produced. Decisions in Singapore are pretty much made by society. I think that would be consistent with capitalism. I'm not a capitalist so I am not 100% sure. If Singapore isn't capitalist what is it then? It surely isn't socialist or merchantilist or anything I can think of.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not in USA (I'm in Canada :) ) so I don't face these things in real life. But whenever I go on message boards, or something, it is always the same. Conservatives always red-bait (i.e. accuse you of being a supporter of Stalin's atrocities), accuse everyone on the left of anti-Americanism (whatever that means), and so forth.
You may not agree but the essence of McCarthyism is still there. This will become more evident with the bogus "war" on terrorism.
As far as Hannity & Colmes are concerned, I don't get Fox up here but from what I know of it (from a left-wing perspective), Colmes isn't much of a leftist. No one on Fox is.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Germany wasn't considered a republic after Hitler was voted into office - but he made no pretensions towards it, of course, and even changed the name of the country to reflect it.
I don't want to get into this but very little changed in Germany. The institutions that existed before (eg. courts, etc) were the "same" under Hitler. Hitler was an authoratarian and did things (eg. stacked the court in his favour) but overall, very little changed.
THe problem with your view is that YOU are making up the criteria. Propagandists and governments can simply use their own criteria to demonize whoever they want and change definitions as they see fit. Already, governments like USA do that but it will be worse under your scenario. For instance, consider what you said:
Maybe a more practical test is whether the opposition can get into power.
What does that mean? That is to say, how is someone supposed to figure out if opposition can get into power. If one party dominates for a long time, is it all of a sudden a dictatorship of some sort? USA was ruled by one party for long stretches of time (eg. after USA was founded, the US President came from one party, called Democratic-Republican Party (except for one year)). Japan has been ruled by one party since WWII (though they lost in the late 90's or early 2000's I think). What exactly is Japan?
I still think the political name should stay the same as long as the political structure exists. As long as there are courts, elections, and so forth (however bogus), the country should rightly be called a republic (if it is one). These countries aren't democratic but their political structure is the same.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
DISCLAIMER: I am not an astrophysist :(
As far as I know, those theories have been observed as far back as the 70's. So x-rays being emitted by infalling gases and other similar phenomenon have been proven.
Having said that, the doubt over black holes mainly comes from the fact that you can only observe indirect evidence. For example, the X-rays are being emitted not by the black hole but by things outside it. People who doubt the exitence of black holes say that this isn't sufficient proof.
Overall, my impression is that the scientific community pretty much accepts black holes these days. As Kip Thorne remarked in his book, scientists are 90% sure of the exitence of black holes (as of mid 90's). Where scientists disagree is what happens inside a black hole (also, people disagree about things like time travel, or other "crazy" theories).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This development of Black Holes on the planet poses big questions about the dangers and risks involved in handling Black Holes. If one gets out of control, it could potentially "eat" through our planet in no time.
I'm not an astrophysist but I have been reading some books on this recently (books for layperson that is). I don't think the black holes in question will eat through earth. The horizon of the black hole will be VERY VERY small. Anything far away from it (which is where most of the mass on earth will be) should be fine. As far as I know, black hole horizons do not increase in size (only exception is when multiple black holes coalesce into one). So, if my understanding is correct, the size of the black hole will not get any larger--even if mass is sucked in.
The only real danger I see is some government creating a weapon out of it. If someone can create a "bomb" from a black hole, it will make nuclear weapons look like a joke. That's really the main danger IMO. Having said that, black holes are very hard to manipulate (it will probably take humans 1,000 years to master them). So no one can really use them as weapons per se. If someone creates a black hole, it will just sit there. We don't have the capability (or even the theory necessary) to move them.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Small correction (before I get flamed)... black holes don't allow time travel. Rather wormholes do (wormholes are two black holes connected together)... also, it is not clear if time travel is allowed by the laws of science
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Most science isn't empirical evidence alone. There is also mathematics involved. So you CAN prove SOME things. The things you can prove are called laws. These laws are usually just mathematical properties (eg. conservation of mass). In any case, what you said is correct: THEORIES cannot be proven.
:) Here's hoping that time travel is possible :)
I like hte idea of a black hole too... because it allows time travel--maybe
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What is you are saying is blatantly false. Unless you are cooking up your own definition of capitalism, capitalism says nothing of politics. Capitalism is an economic system! You can practice it with a democracy (politics) or totalitarianism (politics). Government banning speech has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is solely based on free markets and private property (and a few other little details). In other words, capitalism is an economic system.
A good example of a totalitarian capitalism at work is Singapore.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Very easy. In fact, this is more capitalist than even USA. That country happens to be...
Singapore!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What most Americans don't know is that the first communist experiments were in the US.
I didn't know that. Can you elaborate? I always thought it was France and Europe in general.
Sivaram Velauthapillai