BPM is beats per minute... It is commonly used in dance music and its related counterparts. You can usually tell the type of music from the BPM. Trance would have lower BPM while techno will be higher, and rave will be even higher. Having said that, I don't think any user uses it to distinguish the music. You can tell what the music is by the artist/song so...
In rhythmbox, there is no "randomize playlist", only "shuffle", which is a 'pure' random play, which gives you screwy results like hearing the same song 3 times in an hour, and never hearing one other song, ever. That drives me nuts.
lol.. how do you know that a song is being repeated? I imagine you have a large list. Unless you pay attention and can remember exactly, how do you know how many times a song played?:>
The defeat of the USSR has removed the threat of mutually assurred destruction which would have been a global calamity...There are serious problems to be sure, but none as serious as the threat to world peace posed by the Cold War.
How can you say that when it was the Cold War that led to drastic escalation of nuclear weapons? Contrary to what some Americans have been led to believe by their government propaganda, the collapse of USSR had nothing to do with the Cold War. USSR collapsed due to internal economic reasons. A lot of Communists and other experts were predicting the collapse of USSR as far back as the 70's. USA's actions had very little impact on USSR. Reagan takes credit for the collapse but he has very little impact; the Pope takes credit but he didn't do much; Afghanistan takes credit yet it wasn't the reason either. The collapse is due to internal reasons. I know it's hard for you to accept that, given that USA spent over $10trillion dollars on it, but USA did not cause the collapse--it may have prevented the expansion but that's about it.
The same policy that you followed during the Cold War is what is being followed now, with a few changes here and there. Incidentally, this will also be the policy that results in an increase in nuclear weapons. I am pretty sure Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and possibly Taiwan will develop nuclear weapons within 30 years, all because of the current policy. It's too bad that you don't see how your imperialism is the cause of some of these programs.
As far as why I think the world is less safe now (at least from WMD), it's because no one has a tight control on WMDs now. Even Russian nukes are very unsafe now. They can't afford to maintain them and who knows what is happening there? If they are selling "old" guns, tanks, planes, and even submarines to anyone that can afford it, I don't think they can afford to maintain their WMDs. Pretty soon everyone should be able to buy Russian biological agents or nuclear materials--if it isn't happening already. Also, the chance of accidentally firing some weapons is pretty high. You are talkin about a country where miners aren't even paid for 12 months!
Or investigate the death of the League of Nations and the role it played in the development of WWII.
Whose fault is it that the League of Nations collapsed? Britain! Who do you think is trying to "marginalize" (codeword for 'destroy') the UN? USA! If the world descends into WWIII (which might happen with the current path of USA), you can squarely blame USA for the collapse of the UN.
This econopolitical battle you are talking about is secondary to the importance of feelings of disillusionment and hopelessness engendered in the aftermath of WWI. That is crux of the matter.
The econopolitical systems and the state of the citizens go hand in hand. Why is so attractive about Islamic Fundamentalism? I think you are making a grave mistake by not looking at the systems that underpin the behaviour of people. Why makes you an imperialist? Just like how British imperialism was trying to "educate the savages", American imperialism is trying to "bring freedom to the world".
By the way, did you know that Britain and USA supported the fascists that were the precursor to the Nazis? Communism was thought to be a greater evil (a view still held by many conservatives in USA) so they supported the fascists...a point erased from the history books!
In any case, I don't know what your point is. USA intervened in WWI and WWI was--or at least its outcome--was the cause of WWII. League of Nations was going to collapse because Britain held it in contempt, just like how USA views the UN now; no one really cared about the plight of the Germans and others, just like how no one cares about the oppression of the Middle Easterners under the US-supported monarchs.
Another issue with your post is you seem to think it's easy peasy to get rid of nuclear weapons
lol I find it funny that you have to educate the masses of the proper use of 'its' vs 'it's':) For some reason, this error/mistake seems to be more and more common nowadays. Since spellcheckers won't catch that error (both will pass), I wonder how people get through school without knowing the difference.
As for why we invaded Panama, I don't know enough of the history of our involvement there to really say. I do find it quite unlikely that we dispatched oh 24,000 troops or so there just to secure General Noreiga.
If you want to understand my claim that USA is an imperial power, you should look into the Panama invasion. There is very little justification for it. The drug thingie was a pretext, just as WMDs in Iraq was a pretext. Here is a summary of the invasion. I don't know where you stand on the econopolitical spectrum, but read this article from Noam Chomsky, who I share many opinions with.
Now, I believe that principle effect of the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War was that the world is now a few feet father away from the brink of global thermonuclear war.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you really think the threat of a nuclear war is less? I personally think it is higher now. Anyway, this isn't relevant.
It is tragic that many lives were lost in the process but it was for the greater good.
I don't think I have much to say about that other than, I completely disagree with that view.
Utilitarians don't support tragedy, they support the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You can even make utilitarian arguments for the rightness of capital punishment. I don't swing that way but the point is that utilitarianism is not a very objective standard and I guess that's why you took some shots at me in the above blockquote.
Some people argue that utilitarianism is not liberal (I'm a leftist BTW). I guess I see why. If killing a whole hoarde of people on a bogus war, in the name of greater good, is utilitarian, I guess I don't support it.
Did U.S. isolationism after World War I lead to World War II?
You are the first person I have encountered, who has posited that. The vast majority of the people claim that the harsh policies imposed by the winners of WWI were the cause of WWII (along with the support of fascism by Britain and USA before the rise of Hitler). I don't know how non-interventionism enters into this. USA was involved in WWI. It was a major party that influenced the policies imposed on Germany. If WWI didn't happen, WWII would have been different.
In any case, WWII has nothing to do with interventionism. If anything, it is all about ideologies and conflicts between econopolitical systems. If fascism didn't gain power, Communism would have. If Communism didn't, anarchism may have. Or socialism. Or one of the countless other ideologies.
However, I find it hard to ignore the many cogent arguments that I have read that have pointed towards US isolationist policies as being a major cause of World War II.
I have never heard anyone say that before. Or maybe I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you talking about WWII as a war? Or are you talking about preventing a genocide like the Holocaust? They are two different things. WWII is a war, just like any others. I personally think it would have happened anyway. As I speculated above, if not with the fascists, then with the Communists. Also, a war may have broken out in Asia even if one didn't happen in Europe. Japan was practicing imperialism so it was very expansionist. How would USA stop the war with Japan?
Stopping something like the Holocaust, on the other hand, may have been possible although I don't think it would have happened. No one cared about the Jews back then. There were an "inferior" people and anti-Semitism was rampant. In fact, there were signs in Toronto saying "No Jews" (kind of like "No blacks" or "No dogs").
It makes me wonder what would happen today if we pulled out of all the places we are currently in. Would World War III be just around the corner?
Pulling out would make things better. You are already on t
I'm not from where you think I'm from. I'm actually Canadian (originally from Sri Lanka).
BTW, you say you are apolitical but you sound like an anarchist:)
Bush getting re-elected?!?! Yup, probably, unless of course we get any answers about anything, before the election.
A lot of people think Bush won't be re-elected but I don't know. With his propaganda machine, anything is possible--although the war is dragging him down.
I would further your point by stating that the bounds of ("wild") capitalism are now far beyond the concept of borders or allegience. The HQ is in, say, Detroit, but there are branches and offices and networks to 16 other countries, 120 partners, etc.
Yeah, I agree. What matters is that they are wealthy capitalists. They move around their corporations as it suits them. It wouldn't surprise me if they flee the US if things turn bad. Although, many wealthy people partly live in places like Bahamas, Monaco, etc.
The Bush administration may be controlled by neo cons, but I believe that it is just about keeping corporations prices down.
What you are saying is true in the larger picture (i.e. long term 10-year plan). But in the short term, I think the ideologies and politics matter more than the corporations. For example, I don't consider the war in Iraq to be driven by corporations. Yes, they are profitting from it but it is driven largely by ideologies.
1) Executive Branch may be too strong, as you suggest, however I believe it is more that the Judicial Branch has no spine or has become loyal to the whims of the Executive branch.
The problem is that the judicial branch can be manipulated easily. I don't know the rules governing it but maybe the president appoints the attorney general? I know in Canada the Prime Minister appoints judges to the Supreme Court. Not sure how the US system is.
Moving right along... the main difference between Republicans and Democrats in my experience is the following. The democrats say that "everything will be fine!", and then they fuck you. The Republicans say "Hey! We're gonna fuck you!", and then they fuck you. I don't lean to the left or right but I have to admire the Republicans candor regarding that kind of behavior.
lol hehe:>
Ultimately, I guess my point is that the power no longer resides with government. The power or the world is in the hands of the capitalists you and I disagree with so much. This could be changed if the American people had enough spine to stand up for certain rights, but who can risk jail time when there are car payments, house payments, bank payments, child care, day care, health care, electric bills, gas bills, and not enough of the green bills to go around.
Most humans on earth are sheep. They can be so easily manipulated that it isn't even funny. That isn't a very nice portrayl of a so-called intelligent species but I don't see it any other way...
Indeed, but it must actually be a competitive advantage to confer competitive advantage. Businesses are notoriously poor at understanding this point or selecting the right technolgies.
That is a moot point. Yes, businesses aren't perfect but they do the best that they can. If they aren't selecting the right technologies, who is?
You mention that MS products are more expensive but they are not. Look at it within the context of a business. The vast majority of hte applications are written for Windows. In fact, they are Windows-only. If you want an accounting solution, Windows offers the best choices. How about ERP or sales? Windows. And so forth. A lot of people don't realize that Linux (or other competitor) adoption is low, not because these OSes suck, but because they don't have the necessary applications. How many people realize that Linux will never be accepted by home users, for example, until games and other multimedia apps are available.
Which also brings up the issue of whether we are going to consider building such skyscrapers as desirable jobs, and then rebuilding them when they fall. Is this the creation of wealth? Less stitches more riches?
That's capitalism! Make a quick buck and ignore the future. That's how everyone acts, including the executives running the show. Don't get me wrong: I'm an anti-capitalist. But that's how the world works.
Well, as has already been pointed out it usually works the other way around. People want apps that their hardware won't run so they have to invest in new hardware.
Pointed out by who? Anyway, I was speaking about the general case. In the vast majority of cases IMO, the software and hardware go hand-in-hand. Organizations don't usually upgrade hardware just to increase speed (unless performance is a major bottleneck). My experience has been that companies upgrade hardware and software together (eg. new Windows+new hardware), often for reasons other than speed. The general philosophy of corporations is summed up as: if it works, just leave it alone.
Yes, but usually fewer jobs overall. They are also typically transfer jobs. In the context of this discussion we're talking about IT jobs, not the delivery jobs you posit.
I was actually talking about tech jobs and not shipping jobs (my wording wasn't very good). The shipping company will hire software developers, or maintainers, or some service provider, if they wanted to use a new computer-based tracking system. They just created some IT jobs.
Based on your opinions, you seem like a luddite. I'm not sure what your theory of jobs is.
Now that's a long thread.
The amazing thing is that you practically replied to everyone who posted:)
I don't think that's true for the tech industry. I was mainly talking about computer jobs... of course, I could be wrong. I agree that your statement is, in all likelihood, correct for the overall industry. Many retailing and service jobs are due to small companies.
I think I know what he is getting at. I don't think he is referring to the application itself. Instead, he is probably referring to its architecture. I think he isn't happy with the fact that it uses its own graphics framework. For example, the buttons, icons, menus, etc are native to OOo. I'm guessing he would have preferred if OOo used standard libraries or something.
Anyway, that's my feeling... I kine of agree with his view--if that is indeed what he means. I highly doubt he is referring to the software itself, which is great.
What feature of the new systems (other than speed) do you see as opening support for new apps that answer some need of business?
Businesses use technology as a competitive advantage. It isn't just speed, time, and labour that matters. Things like new capabilities are far more important. I haven't worked in the industry in a couple of years (unemployed:( ) so I can't give you concrete predictions. However, I can say that new capabilities will mean a business would upgrade hardware, install new software, hire workers, etc.
One thing that seems apparent to me is that one of the possible attributes of a new app over an old from the business point of view is that it takes fewer people to implement and maintain than the old one. In the context of jobs newer more powerful machines with better apps may well mean fewer jobs for people.
That is true! Many people, both the tech crowd as well as others, do lose jobs. However, that is not always the case. Technology also creates new capabilities, which creates jobs. A shipping firm may purchase computer systems that enable it to track its fleet and shipments via GPS (I know this is already being done so I'm not saying this is new; it's just an example). Previously, they woudln't have had that capability but now they would. This may result in creation of jobs. They may be able to increase their volume by 20% and improve customer service by ensuring that packages aren't lost (or even if they were, that the problem is corrected).
Large companies account for a huge number of jobs. Yes, small companies are numerous but large companies are where the jobs are. If corporate CIOs say things aren't good, then I don't see things improving:(
How can you say the job is done? Mullah Mohammed Omar is still on the loose. Usama bin Laden is still out there plotting something (here is his latest news).
It sounds weird, but apparently many corporations care less about who wins than that the winner will owe a favor.
That sounds weird but that's how it is everywhere. Pick any country and you'll find that the wealthy elite and their corporations meddle with all parties. In Canada, where corporations don't donate as much as USA, you'll note that the Liberals and the PCs receive funding from the same companies.
Corporations are basically apolitical entities. If given the choice they wouldn't even be involved in politics. However, they want to become wealthy. Nowadays, manipulating politics is the best way to become rich (eg. check out Kellog&Brown (aka Halliburton) and their profits from Iraq). So the best thing to do is to donate to whichever party you think will win. That way, you influence both. These corporations have no opinion on politics. They don't have a position on war, on abortion, on human rights, etc. But they do care about money.
There was a report I read a couple of days ago, that there was a group in the Pentagon (but under the VP) whose job was to push the President into war against Iraq, telling whatever lies were needed to push him into action.
The Bush administration is controlled by neoconservatives (aka neocons). They are mostly superhawks and hence see everything in terms of power. They are the ones that pushed Bush for the war. I don't think they lied but they manipulated the information (although one may say that lying and manipualating information is the same). Recently the US government has been involved in disinformation over Syria (eg. Syria has WMDs, Syrian fighters streaming across the border to Iraq, etc). Syria is the next target on the neocon agenda. Bush is too dumb to figure out what is going on. Bush is a very simplistic person who seems everything as a religious person (eg. good vs bad; either with us or against us; etc).
But due to the mess in Iraq, the neocons are losing power. Bush recently shifted power from Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleeza Rice. Another neocon, a senior advisor to Cheney, was also let go recently. There may be a few more "changes." I still don't think Bush knows what's going on but the Republican Party knows it. Karl Rove is basically trying to clean house.
Having said all this, I think Bush will be re-elected again! The problem with American politics is:
Executive branch (i.e. white house/president) is too strong. Unlike British systems (eg. Canada), US Presidents are worshipped like Gods by their citizens, opponents, etc.
Two party system: This basically means that there really isn't much dissent. You either go with one guy or another. To make matters worse, both the Republicans and Democrats are very similar.
Too much control by capitalists. The capitalists, such as corporations, control US politics. This happens everywhere but it is worse in USA. I think it is like that because USA is the flag-bearer of capitalism, and hence the most powerful corporations, wealthy, etc reside there. This essentially means that they will be more powerful than anywhere else. This isn't just the Republicans either; the Democrats are controlled by corporations too.
For reference, I'm a 27 year old male from Toronto, Canada (important for the discussion below).
What you are saying doesn't apply to this case, since this is a consulting report which is the opposite of what you are saying (i.e. people within the system are being discriminated against).
In any case, what you are saying is valid for the general situation. The problem is that the world isn't perfect. A sizeable amount of the population are racists, sexists, etc. For example, people I have encountered in my life (people my age, who you would think aren't sexist) were very sexist. I have seen many men (20 to 30 year olds, meaning more liberal than old men) who actually say stuff like "women can't do that job", "women aren't good at xyz", etc. What do you think these guys are doing when they hire people? Do you really think they are hiring women? I highly doubt it. The same thing with ethnicity, language, etc.
The problem is as follows. You pre-suppose the following: "you just hire whoever is better for the job." Can you guarantee that? The answer is no, given what I said above with people being racist, sexist, and so forth.
Look at, say, blacks in USA. Blacks were considered as equals for a long time. Yet, many people did not hire them. They weren't even hired for the worst jobs. Why? The reason is discrmination. As long as the people who discriminate is sizeable, the best person will not be hired for the job. Trust me, if hte best person for a job was hired, things would be a lot simpler and you wouldn't have some of these problems.
Yes, that is one disinformation technique. However, it is very difficult to pull off. First of all, you have to know in advance that someone is going to "break the system". What if people didn't figure out how to reveal the hidden words? Second, people will verify the information as much as they can. This may contradict things.
Redact is basically doublespeak for censorship. The government doesn't want to reveal some information so they censor it. Instead of saying censorship (which has negative connotations), they use redact.
This is similar to collatoral damage, which is doublespeak for civilian deaths. Civilian deaths sounds bad so collatoral damage is used.
Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so?
That's one of the ways the government gains power. Selecing when and how to apply a law is a powerful tool. If the government enforced something all the time, or never enforced it, it wouldn't have any power, would it? It would simply be a "robotic" institution.
You gain power by applying it selectively. Just observe totalitarian systems and governments and you'll see what I mean. For example, China does not prosecute everyone that speaks against the government. In fact, people in shops and restaurants regularly criticize the government. The government doesn't arrest any of those. However, if the person that is critizing was a "true enemy" (i.e. powerful opponent, and not some guy off hte streeth), then the government would send the guy to jail. The government selectively applies the law. All of a sudden, the law that everyone breaks is used to punish those that are dangerous to the government.
If something was enforced all the time, no one would do it and the power wouldn't even exist. However, if you let everyone "break the law" but then prosecute a few of your enemies, that's power!
I know what you are getting at... but I hope that you fund that guy's legal defense. Calling for people to be charged just to show the mockery is dangerous to the charged individual. It wouldn't even surprise me if the government succeeds in locking up the "culprit".
Be careful what you ask for... until you put yourself in the line of fire, it's kind of dangerous to ask others to do so.
Funny joke, yes. But it is amazing how conservatives lack understanding of communism, or let alone anything else. Proletariat is not intrinsic to communism/socialism/etc. It is actually from a Roman word. Calling someone proletariat is the same as calling someone working class.
I'm sure you guys can come up with something else.
First a bit of history, I am unaware of another more prominent piece of hedonistic governmental literature than the USA Declaration of Independence. It trumpets the "right to the pursuit of happiness" for crying out loud.
I agree with that. Unfortunately, that is nothing more than a piece paper now. The actions of USA are highly divergent from its original principles. Washington, Jefferson, and others supported a republic and non-interventionism. Your Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they saw the imperialism of USA spreading its wings over the world. If you know your history, you would know that they also didn't want a massive military (aka military-industrial complex). You could cite the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. All fine works; but if you don't follow the principles, they mean nothing.
If the price for the defeat of the USSR was the creation of Saddam and the rest of those petty criminals, then I say it is tragic but "was for the greater good" of all our allies.
If you adhere to that principle, you don't value life! It is ok as long as you accomplish the mission right? What would the countless victims say? Can you really go up to the dead in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, etc and say that they deserved to die? What if you were one of them? Would you be content with the outcome? You sound just like the Stalinists you fought: tragic but it was the greater good. When did utilitarianism support tragedies?
BTW, Britian is still a major military power.
Yeah. I don't know what my original comment was but my point was probably that it wasn't a superpower and hence an imperial power.
And second of all, US forces are where they are (all over the world) because they had to be to check the russian menace, iraqi aggresion in the 90s yada yada yada.
Do you actually believe that or are you just repeating the government propaganda? Is USA in the Middle East for altruistic reasons or to protect the monarchs and get the oil?
If we're so imperialistic why did we just relinquish control of the Panama Canal to Panama?
Check that story. You never really gave it back. USA still has troops there (if I'm not mistaken) and Panama has little control over the actual canal. BTW, if you think USA is as good as you say, why did it invade Panama in the first place (killing many innocent)? To catch some "bogus" drug lord?
When was the last time a state was admittedly to the Union? That's right, 1959. We're just gobbling territories up all over the place, aren't we?
I don't think you really understand modern imperialism. You don't really need to take over countries anymore. You only do it as a last resort. Instead, you go and install proxies or turn countries into client states (eg. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc).
USA is flawed just as much as other countries. However, since it is a superpower, it does the most damage to the world.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:but is it undercutting its own "superiority"?
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
If you phrased your statement differently to say 'the downfall of science is correlated with the ascent of the modern corporation' , I think that you would be a lot closer to the truth.
The rise of the corporation is a result of capitalism. In fact, I would say it wouldn't even exist (at least not with the same power) under alternate systems. You can't just claim the corporation has nothing to do with capitalism when in fact, it was created by capitalism. (BTW, I wouldn't really consider the Renaissance as being capitalism. It is more like merchantilism, although it is related. Also, private individuals improving society doesn't mean capitalism (if you use that view, I'm sure you can trace it back to ancient times))). It all depends on your definition of capitalism. You are using a loose definition while I'm going with the Marxist view. Under my view, capitalism basically started with Adam Smith and contains on today.
PS I do not think that 'the downfall of science' is complete, or anywhere near it. You could argue that it is starting, but nothing more IMHO
Yeah I agree. The downfall clearly is nowhere near complete. If it was, you can be guaranteed to see articles about it in the mainstream media, academia, etc.
I also don't think it will be downfall in the sense that it will dissapear (unless there is some major catastrophe like a nuclear war). First of all, engineering (i.e. applied science) is exponential and lags science. So, even if all the universities and research institutions were eliminated overnight, along with all the scientific journals/etc, you will still get a lot of new technology, products, etc for at least 30 years IMO. Second, science is too important and hence won't dissapear. Science is nothing more than a way of thinking, just like how religion is a way of thinking. Someone will take up the cause and revitalize it. If not in some developed country, then in some undeveloped country.
My CRAZY views regarding a gap in science:)
I don't know if you want to read this stuff but I feel like expressing my views. I appreciate any comments:)
The only thing that will truly eliminate science is another "way of thinking". My view (ok this is going to be crazy depending on your world view:) ) is that science is seriously lacking something. Science is a branch of philosophy, rooted in empiricism (with a little bit of scepticism and rationalism). I see a gap in science. In particular, science cannot explain certain philosophical questions (eg. dealing with "after-life" (if such a thing exists), universe, dreams, etc). Here are some examples...
For example, it is questionable whether science will ever explain the essence of a human. Science can describe the physical elements of a human but what about things like the thought process, dreams, and the like. Perhaps the following example will illustrate this fault much better.
I'm going to assume you are a "scientist" (i.e. someone supporting science; not someone whose profession is science), and that you are an atheist or agnostic. To see the gap in science, try to answer the following question: What is beyond the universe?
According to science, that question is "invalid". That is to say, the universe by defintion contains all space and time. Therefore, it has nothing outside it. For instance, there isn't an edge. You can't delineate the edge and then ask what is beyond it. If you travelled in one direction, you would end up where you started.
However, the question is perfectly valid (from a philosophical point of view). If the universe were a balloon (an analogy scientists often use), it must be expanding into something. The balloon according to science is "everything" but from a philosophical point of view, it doesn't answer it.
I don't know if you understand what the hell I was saying:) but I think the day will come (likely in the far future) when a new "way of thinking" will answer what is beyond the universe. Science, unfortunately, can never answer that question. It is, in some sense, beyond the scope of science.
Slashdot Mirror
BPM is beats per minute... It is commonly used in dance music and its related counterparts. You can usually tell the type of music from the BPM. Trance would have lower BPM while techno will be higher, and rave will be even higher. Having said that, I don't think any user uses it to distinguish the music. You can tell what the music is by the artist/song so...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
In rhythmbox, there is no "randomize playlist", only "shuffle", which is a 'pure' random play, which gives you screwy results like hearing the same song 3 times in an hour, and never hearing one other song, ever. That drives me nuts.
:>
lol.. how do you know that a song is being repeated? I imagine you have a large list. Unless you pay attention and can remember exactly, how do you know how many times a song played?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The defeat of the USSR has removed the threat of mutually assurred destruction which would have been a global calamity...There are serious problems to be sure, but none as serious as the threat to world peace posed by the Cold War.
How can you say that when it was the Cold War that led to drastic escalation of nuclear weapons? Contrary to what some Americans have been led to believe by their government propaganda, the collapse of USSR had nothing to do with the Cold War. USSR collapsed due to internal economic reasons. A lot of Communists and other experts were predicting the collapse of USSR as far back as the 70's. USA's actions had very little impact on USSR. Reagan takes credit for the collapse but he has very little impact; the Pope takes credit but he didn't do much; Afghanistan takes credit yet it wasn't the reason either. The collapse is due to internal reasons. I know it's hard for you to accept that, given that USA spent over $10trillion dollars on it, but USA did not cause the collapse--it may have prevented the expansion but that's about it.
The same policy that you followed during the Cold War is what is being followed now, with a few changes here and there. Incidentally, this will also be the policy that results in an increase in nuclear weapons. I am pretty sure Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and possibly Taiwan will develop nuclear weapons within 30 years, all because of the current policy. It's too bad that you don't see how your imperialism is the cause of some of these programs.
As far as why I think the world is less safe now (at least from WMD), it's because no one has a tight control on WMDs now. Even Russian nukes are very unsafe now. They can't afford to maintain them and who knows what is happening there? If they are selling "old" guns, tanks, planes, and even submarines to anyone that can afford it, I don't think they can afford to maintain their WMDs. Pretty soon everyone should be able to buy Russian biological agents or nuclear materials--if it isn't happening already. Also, the chance of accidentally firing some weapons is pretty high. You are talkin about a country where miners aren't even paid for 12 months!
Or investigate the death of the League of Nations and the role it played in the development of WWII.
Whose fault is it that the League of Nations collapsed? Britain! Who do you think is trying to "marginalize" (codeword for 'destroy') the UN? USA! If the world descends into WWIII (which might happen with the current path of USA), you can squarely blame USA for the collapse of the UN.
This econopolitical battle you are talking about is secondary to the importance of feelings of disillusionment and hopelessness engendered in the aftermath of WWI. That is crux of the matter.
The econopolitical systems and the state of the citizens go hand in hand. Why is so attractive about Islamic Fundamentalism? I think you are making a grave mistake by not looking at the systems that underpin the behaviour of people. Why makes you an imperialist? Just like how British imperialism was trying to "educate the savages", American imperialism is trying to "bring freedom to the world".
By the way, did you know that Britain and USA supported the fascists that were the precursor to the Nazis? Communism was thought to be a greater evil (a view still held by many conservatives in USA) so they supported the fascists...a point erased from the history books!
In any case, I don't know what your point is. USA intervened in WWI and WWI was--or at least its outcome--was the cause of WWII. League of Nations was going to collapse because Britain held it in contempt, just like how USA views the UN now; no one really cared about the plight of the Germans and others, just like how no one cares about the oppression of the Middle Easterners under the US-supported monarchs.
Another issue with your post is you seem to think it's easy peasy to get rid of nuclear weapons
Why? I found it humourous...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol I find it funny that you have to educate the masses of the proper use of 'its' vs 'it's' :) For some reason, this error/mistake seems to be more and more common nowadays. Since spellcheckers won't catch that error (both will pass), I wonder how people get through school without knowing the difference.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Here is that article I forgot to link in my message above.
Sorry about that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
As for why we invaded Panama, I don't know enough of the history of our involvement there to really say. I do find it quite unlikely that we dispatched oh 24,000 troops or so there just to secure General Noreiga.
If you want to understand my claim that USA is an imperial power, you should look into the Panama invasion. There is very little justification for it. The drug thingie was a pretext, just as WMDs in Iraq was a pretext. Here is a summary of the invasion. I don't know where you stand on the econopolitical spectrum, but read this article from Noam Chomsky, who I share many opinions with.
Now, I believe that principle effect of the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War was that the world is now a few feet father away from the brink of global thermonuclear war.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you really think the threat of a nuclear war is less? I personally think it is higher now. Anyway, this isn't relevant.
It is tragic that many lives were lost in the process but it was for the greater good.
I don't think I have much to say about that other than, I completely disagree with that view.
Utilitarians don't support tragedy, they support the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You can even make utilitarian arguments for the rightness of capital punishment. I don't swing that way but the point is that utilitarianism is not a very objective standard and I guess that's why you took some shots at me in the above blockquote.
Some people argue that utilitarianism is not liberal (I'm a leftist BTW). I guess I see why. If killing a whole hoarde of people on a bogus war, in the name of greater good, is utilitarian, I guess I don't support it.
Did U.S. isolationism after World War I lead to World War II?
You are the first person I have encountered, who has posited that. The vast majority of the people claim that the harsh policies imposed by the winners of WWI were the cause of WWII (along with the support of fascism by Britain and USA before the rise of Hitler). I don't know how non-interventionism enters into this. USA was involved in WWI. It was a major party that influenced the policies imposed on Germany. If WWI didn't happen, WWII would have been different.
In any case, WWII has nothing to do with interventionism. If anything, it is all about ideologies and conflicts between econopolitical systems. If fascism didn't gain power, Communism would have. If Communism didn't, anarchism may have. Or socialism. Or one of the countless other ideologies.
However, I find it hard to ignore the many cogent arguments that I have read that have pointed towards US isolationist policies as being a major cause of World War II.
I have never heard anyone say that before. Or maybe I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you talking about WWII as a war? Or are you talking about preventing a genocide like the Holocaust? They are two different things. WWII is a war, just like any others. I personally think it would have happened anyway. As I speculated above, if not with the fascists, then with the Communists. Also, a war may have broken out in Asia even if one didn't happen in Europe. Japan was practicing imperialism so it was very expansionist. How would USA stop the war with Japan?
Stopping something like the Holocaust, on the other hand, may have been possible although I don't think it would have happened. No one cared about the Jews back then. There were an "inferior" people and anti-Semitism was rampant. In fact, there were signs in Toronto saying "No Jews" (kind of like "No blacks" or "No dogs").
It makes me wonder what would happen today if we pulled out of all the places we are currently in. Would World War III be just around the corner?
Pulling out would make things better. You are already on t
I'm not from where you think I'm from. I'm actually Canadian (originally from Sri Lanka).
:)
:>
BTW, you say you are apolitical but you sound like an anarchist
Bush getting re-elected?!?! Yup, probably, unless of course we get any answers about anything, before the election.
A lot of people think Bush won't be re-elected but I don't know. With his propaganda machine, anything is possible--although the war is dragging him down.
I would further your point by stating that the bounds of ("wild") capitalism are now far beyond the concept of borders or allegience. The HQ is in, say, Detroit, but there are branches and offices and networks to 16 other countries, 120 partners, etc.
Yeah, I agree. What matters is that they are wealthy capitalists. They move around their corporations as it suits them. It wouldn't surprise me if they flee the US if things turn bad. Although, many wealthy people partly live in places like Bahamas, Monaco, etc.
The Bush administration may be controlled by neo cons, but I believe that it is just about keeping corporations prices down.
What you are saying is true in the larger picture (i.e. long term 10-year plan). But in the short term, I think the ideologies and politics matter more than the corporations. For example, I don't consider the war in Iraq to be driven by corporations. Yes, they are profitting from it but it is driven largely by ideologies.
1) Executive Branch may be too strong, as you suggest, however I believe it is more that the Judicial Branch has no spine or has become loyal to the whims of the Executive branch.
The problem is that the judicial branch can be manipulated easily. I don't know the rules governing it but maybe the president appoints the attorney general? I know in Canada the Prime Minister appoints judges to the Supreme Court. Not sure how the US system is.
Moving right along... the main difference between Republicans and Democrats in my experience is the following. The democrats say that "everything will be fine!", and then they fuck you. The Republicans say "Hey! We're gonna fuck you!", and then they fuck you. I don't lean to the left or right but I have to admire the Republicans candor regarding that kind of behavior.
lol hehe
Ultimately, I guess my point is that the power no longer resides with government. The power or the world is in the hands of the capitalists you and I disagree with so much. This could be changed if the American people had enough spine to stand up for certain rights, but who can risk jail time when there are car payments, house payments, bank payments, child care, day care, health care, electric bills, gas bills, and not enough of the green bills to go around.
Most humans on earth are sheep. They can be so easily manipulated that it isn't even funny. That isn't a very nice portrayl of a so-called intelligent species but I don't see it any other way...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Indeed, but it must actually be a competitive advantage to confer competitive advantage. Businesses are notoriously poor at understanding this point or selecting the right technolgies.
:)
That is a moot point. Yes, businesses aren't perfect but they do the best that they can. If they aren't selecting the right technologies, who is?
You mention that MS products are more expensive but they are not. Look at it within the context of a business. The vast majority of hte applications are written for Windows. In fact, they are Windows-only. If you want an accounting solution, Windows offers the best choices. How about ERP or sales? Windows. And so forth. A lot of people don't realize that Linux (or other competitor) adoption is low, not because these OSes suck, but because they don't have the necessary applications. How many people realize that Linux will never be accepted by home users, for example, until games and other multimedia apps are available.
Which also brings up the issue of whether we are going to consider building such skyscrapers as desirable jobs, and then rebuilding them when they fall. Is this the creation of wealth? Less stitches more riches?
That's capitalism! Make a quick buck and ignore the future. That's how everyone acts, including the executives running the show. Don't get me wrong: I'm an anti-capitalist. But that's how the world works.
Well, as has already been pointed out it usually works the other way around. People want apps that their hardware won't run so they have to invest in new hardware.
Pointed out by who? Anyway, I was speaking about the general case. In the vast majority of cases IMO, the software and hardware go hand-in-hand. Organizations don't usually upgrade hardware just to increase speed (unless performance is a major bottleneck). My experience has been that companies upgrade hardware and software together (eg. new Windows+new hardware), often for reasons other than speed. The general philosophy of corporations is summed up as: if it works, just leave it alone.
Yes, but usually fewer jobs overall. They are also typically transfer jobs. In the context of this discussion we're talking about IT jobs, not the delivery jobs you posit.
I was actually talking about tech jobs and not shipping jobs (my wording wasn't very good). The shipping company will hire software developers, or maintainers, or some service provider, if they wanted to use a new computer-based tracking system. They just created some IT jobs.
Based on your opinions, you seem like a luddite. I'm not sure what your theory of jobs is.
Now that's a long thread.
The amazing thing is that you practically replied to everyone who posted
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think that's true for the tech industry. I was mainly talking about computer jobs... of course, I could be wrong. I agree that your statement is, in all likelihood, correct for the overall industry. Many retailing and service jobs are due to small companies.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think I know what he is getting at. I don't think he is referring to the application itself. Instead, he is probably referring to its architecture. I think he isn't happy with the fact that it uses its own graphics framework. For example, the buttons, icons, menus, etc are native to OOo. I'm guessing he would have preferred if OOo used standard libraries or something.
Anyway, that's my feeling... I kine of agree with his view--if that is indeed what he means. I highly doubt he is referring to the software itself, which is great.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What feature of the new systems (other than speed) do you see as opening support for new apps that answer some need of business?
:( ) so I can't give you concrete predictions. However, I can say that new capabilities will mean a business would upgrade hardware, install new software, hire workers, etc.
Businesses use technology as a competitive advantage. It isn't just speed, time, and labour that matters. Things like new capabilities are far more important. I haven't worked in the industry in a couple of years (unemployed
One thing that seems apparent to me is that one of the possible attributes of a new app over an old from the business point of view is that it takes fewer people to implement and maintain than the old one. In the context of jobs newer more powerful machines with better apps may well mean fewer jobs for people.
That is true! Many people, both the tech crowd as well as others, do lose jobs. However, that is not always the case. Technology also creates new capabilities, which creates jobs. A shipping firm may purchase computer systems that enable it to track its fleet and shipments via GPS (I know this is already being done so I'm not saying this is new; it's just an example). Previously, they woudln't have had that capability but now they would. This may result in creation of jobs. They may be able to increase their volume by 20% and improve customer service by ensuring that packages aren't lost (or even if they were, that the problem is corrected).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If I don't get a job soon, that's it for me :(:(:( I'll have to leave the tech field and go into manual labour or something :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Large companies account for a huge number of jobs. Yes, small companies are numerous but large companies are where the jobs are. If corporate CIOs say things aren't good, then I don't see things improving :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
...the initial job was done well.
How can you say the job is done? Mullah Mohammed Omar is still on the loose. Usama bin Laden is still out there plotting something (here is his latest news).
Sivaram VElauthapillai
It sounds weird, but apparently many corporations care less about who wins than that the winner will owe a favor.
That sounds weird but that's how it is everywhere. Pick any country and you'll find that the wealthy elite and their corporations meddle with all parties. In Canada, where corporations don't donate as much as USA, you'll note that the Liberals and the PCs receive funding from the same companies.
Corporations are basically apolitical entities. If given the choice they wouldn't even be involved in politics. However, they want to become wealthy. Nowadays, manipulating politics is the best way to become rich (eg. check out Kellog&Brown (aka Halliburton) and their profits from Iraq). So the best thing to do is to donate to whichever party you think will win. That way, you influence both. These corporations have no opinion on politics. They don't have a position on war, on abortion, on human rights, etc. But they do care about money.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The Bush administration is controlled by neoconservatives (aka neocons). They are mostly superhawks and hence see everything in terms of power. They are the ones that pushed Bush for the war. I don't think they lied but they manipulated the information (although one may say that lying and manipualating information is the same). Recently the US government has been involved in disinformation over Syria (eg. Syria has WMDs, Syrian fighters streaming across the border to Iraq, etc). Syria is the next target on the neocon agenda. Bush is too dumb to figure out what is going on. Bush is a very simplistic person who seems everything as a religious person (eg. good vs bad; either with us or against us; etc).
But due to the mess in Iraq, the neocons are losing power. Bush recently shifted power from Donald Rumsfeld to Condoleeza Rice. Another neocon, a senior advisor to Cheney, was also let go recently. There may be a few more "changes." I still don't think Bush knows what's going on but the Republican Party knows it. Karl Rove is basically trying to clean house.
Having said all this, I think Bush will be re-elected again! The problem with American politics is:
- Executive branch (i.e. white house/president) is too strong. Unlike British systems (eg. Canada), US Presidents are worshipped like Gods by their citizens, opponents, etc.
- Two party system: This basically means that there really isn't much dissent. You either go with one guy or another. To make matters worse, both the Republicans and Democrats are very similar.
- Too much control by capitalists. The capitalists, such as corporations, control US politics. This happens everywhere but it is worse in USA. I think it is like that because USA is the flag-bearer of capitalism, and hence the most powerful corporations, wealthy, etc reside there. This essentially means that they will be more powerful than anywhere else. This isn't just the Republicans either; the Democrats are controlled by corporations too.
Sivaram VelauthapillaiFor reference, I'm a 27 year old male from Toronto, Canada (important for the discussion below).
What you are saying doesn't apply to this case, since this is a consulting report which is the opposite of what you are saying (i.e. people within the system are being discriminated against).
In any case, what you are saying is valid for the general situation. The problem is that the world isn't perfect. A sizeable amount of the population are racists, sexists, etc. For example, people I have encountered in my life (people my age, who you would think aren't sexist) were very sexist. I have seen many men (20 to 30 year olds, meaning more liberal than old men) who actually say stuff like "women can't do that job", "women aren't good at xyz", etc. What do you think these guys are doing when they hire people? Do you really think they are hiring women? I highly doubt it. The same thing with ethnicity, language, etc.
The problem is as follows. You pre-suppose the following: "you just hire whoever is better for the job." Can you guarantee that? The answer is no, given what I said above with people being racist, sexist, and so forth.
Look at, say, blacks in USA. Blacks were considered as equals for a long time. Yet, many people did not hire them. They weren't even hired for the worst jobs. Why? The reason is discrmination. As long as the people who discriminate is sizeable, the best person will not be hired for the job. Trust me, if hte best person for a job was hired, things would be a lot simpler and you wouldn't have some of these problems.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes, that is one disinformation technique. However, it is very difficult to pull off. First of all, you have to know in advance that someone is going to "break the system". What if people didn't figure out how to reveal the hidden words? Second, people will verify the information as much as they can. This may contradict things.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Redact is basically doublespeak for censorship. The government doesn't want to reveal some information so they censor it. Instead of saying censorship (which has negative connotations), they use redact.
This is similar to collatoral damage, which is doublespeak for civilian deaths. Civilian deaths sounds bad so collatoral damage is used.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Is it just me, or does anyone else wish that the government was forced to enforce its own laws, instead of picking and choosing when and where to do so?
That's one of the ways the government gains power. Selecing when and how to apply a law is a powerful tool. If the government enforced something all the time, or never enforced it, it wouldn't have any power, would it? It would simply be a "robotic" institution.
You gain power by applying it selectively. Just observe totalitarian systems and governments and you'll see what I mean. For example, China does not prosecute everyone that speaks against the government. In fact, people in shops and restaurants regularly criticize the government. The government doesn't arrest any of those. However, if the person that is critizing was a "true enemy" (i.e. powerful opponent, and not some guy off hte streeth), then the government would send the guy to jail. The government selectively applies the law. All of a sudden, the law that everyone breaks is used to punish those that are dangerous to the government.
If something was enforced all the time, no one would do it and the power wouldn't even exist. However, if you let everyone "break the law" but then prosecute a few of your enemies, that's power!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I know what you are getting at... but I hope that you fund that guy's legal defense. Calling for people to be charged just to show the mockery is dangerous to the charged individual. It wouldn't even surprise me if the government succeeds in locking up the "culprit".
Be careful what you ask for... until you put yourself in the line of fire, it's kind of dangerous to ask others to do so.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Funny joke, yes. But it is amazing how conservatives lack understanding of communism, or let alone anything else. Proletariat is not intrinsic to communism/socialism/etc. It is actually from a Roman word. Calling someone proletariat is the same as calling someone working class.
I'm sure you guys can come up with something else.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First a bit of history, I am unaware of another more prominent piece of hedonistic governmental literature than the USA Declaration of Independence. It trumpets the "right to the pursuit of happiness" for crying out loud.
I agree with that. Unfortunately, that is nothing more than a piece paper now. The actions of USA are highly divergent from its original principles. Washington, Jefferson, and others supported a republic and non-interventionism. Your Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they saw the imperialism of USA spreading its wings over the world. If you know your history, you would know that they also didn't want a massive military (aka military-industrial complex). You could cite the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. All fine works; but if you don't follow the principles, they mean nothing.
If the price for the defeat of the USSR was the creation of Saddam and the rest of those petty criminals, then I say it is tragic but "was for the greater good" of all our allies.
If you adhere to that principle, you don't value life! It is ok as long as you accomplish the mission right? What would the countless victims say? Can you really go up to the dead in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, etc and say that they deserved to die? What if you were one of them? Would you be content with the outcome? You sound just like the Stalinists you fought: tragic but it was the greater good. When did utilitarianism support tragedies?
BTW, Britian is still a major military power.
Yeah. I don't know what my original comment was but my point was probably that it wasn't a superpower and hence an imperial power.
And second of all, US forces are where they are (all over the world) because they had to be to check the russian menace, iraqi aggresion in the 90s yada yada yada.
Do you actually believe that or are you just repeating the government propaganda? Is USA in the Middle East for altruistic reasons or to protect the monarchs and get the oil?
If we're so imperialistic why did we just relinquish control of the Panama Canal to Panama?
Check that story. You never really gave it back. USA still has troops there (if I'm not mistaken) and Panama has little control over the actual canal. BTW, if you think USA is as good as you say, why did it invade Panama in the first place (killing many innocent)? To catch some "bogus" drug lord?
When was the last time a state was admittedly to the Union? That's right, 1959. We're just gobbling territories up all over the place, aren't we?
I don't think you really understand modern imperialism. You don't really need to take over countries anymore. You only do it as a last resort. Instead, you go and install proxies or turn countries into client states (eg. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc).
USA is flawed just as much as other countries. However, since it is a superpower, it does the most damage to the world.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you phrased your statement differently to say 'the downfall of science is correlated with the ascent of the modern corporation' , I think that you would be a lot closer to the truth.
:)
:)
:) ) is that science is seriously lacking something. Science is a branch of philosophy, rooted in empiricism (with a little bit of scepticism and rationalism). I see a gap in science. In particular, science cannot explain certain philosophical questions (eg. dealing with "after-life" (if such a thing exists), universe, dreams, etc). Here are some examples...
:) but I think the day will come (likely in the far future) when a new "way of thinking" will answer what is beyond the universe. Science, unfortunately, can never answer that question. It is, in some sense, beyond the scope of science.
The rise of the corporation is a result of capitalism. In fact, I would say it wouldn't even exist (at least not with the same power) under alternate systems. You can't just claim the corporation has nothing to do with capitalism when in fact, it was created by capitalism. (BTW, I wouldn't really consider the Renaissance as being capitalism. It is more like merchantilism, although it is related. Also, private individuals improving society doesn't mean capitalism (if you use that view, I'm sure you can trace it back to ancient times))). It all depends on your definition of capitalism. You are using a loose definition while I'm going with the Marxist view. Under my view, capitalism basically started with Adam Smith and contains on today.
PS I do not think that 'the downfall of science' is complete, or anywhere near it. You could argue that it is starting, but nothing more IMHO
Yeah I agree. The downfall clearly is nowhere near complete. If it was, you can be guaranteed to see articles about it in the mainstream media, academia, etc.
I also don't think it will be downfall in the sense that it will dissapear (unless there is some major catastrophe like a nuclear war). First of all, engineering (i.e. applied science) is exponential and lags science. So, even if all the universities and research institutions were eliminated overnight, along with all the scientific journals/etc, you will still get a lot of new technology, products, etc for at least 30 years IMO. Second, science is too important and hence won't dissapear. Science is nothing more than a way of thinking, just like how religion is a way of thinking. Someone will take up the cause and revitalize it. If not in some developed country, then in some undeveloped country.
My CRAZY views regarding a gap in science
I don't know if you want to read this stuff but I feel like expressing my views. I appreciate any comments
The only thing that will truly eliminate science is another "way of thinking". My view (ok this is going to be crazy depending on your world view
For example, it is questionable whether science will ever explain the essence of a human. Science can describe the physical elements of a human but what about things like the thought process, dreams, and the like. Perhaps the following example will illustrate this fault much better.
I'm going to assume you are a "scientist" (i.e. someone supporting science; not someone whose profession is science), and that you are an atheist or agnostic. To see the gap in science, try to answer the following question: What is beyond the universe?
According to science, that question is "invalid". That is to say, the universe by defintion contains all space and time. Therefore, it has nothing outside it. For instance, there isn't an edge. You can't delineate the edge and then ask what is beyond it. If you travelled in one direction, you would end up where you started.
However, the question is perfectly valid (from a philosophical point of view). If the universe were a balloon (an analogy scientists often use), it must be expanding into something. The balloon according to science is "everything" but from a philosophical point of view, it doesn't answer it.
I don't know if you understand what the hell I was saying
Sivaram Velauthapillai