Do you think you can have engineering (i.e.applied science) without science? All major advances have theoretical research behind them. Without it, a country would not advance its science. USA, Europe, Japan, and others, would not be where they are without the scientific research they carried out a long time ago. In the short term, engineering and practical research is what matters; but in the long term, science is what matters.
I agree with most of what you say. In fact, I claim that humans stopped evolving thousands of years ago. Things that you mentioned along with others like equality, courts, police, democracy, science, medicine, and so forth basically means that humans don't evolve anymore. For example, instead of combating some disease, you run up to some shop and buy some medicine. So people that would not surive in an evolutionary sense, end up surviving. In addition, due some advances like farming, human populations can literally grow to some crazy level.
Having said all that, my original point against the author still stands. The original person, who is a social Darwinist, doesn't know what he is talking about. Also, social Darwinist justifcations based on scientific evolution are bogus. This is no different than fascists trying to justify their system using evolution when in fact, fascism is a political system and doesn't have anything to do with animal behaviour.
The type of stuff that the story talks about has only one use: weapons. All this boils down to what you believe. The warmongers and weapons manufactuers will obviously hide what they are doing--it has always been like that. You will never find "proof" that anyone is involved in any WMD. Try finding how Agent Orange was developed and you will either find nothing, or will find that it is used for "civilian" use.
My view is that the cited research has no purpose other than weapons. Scientists do not create new, lethal germs or chemicals just to develop an antidote (at least not like here).
You may not agree with that but that is how I see it. Developing a disease, germ, or anything, without any cure has 'warmonger' written all over it. This is the computer equivalent of researchers creating an ultimate computer virus just to study how to defend it. The only people who use such justification are the weapons researchers in military labs.
Anthrax Assasin
From what I recall, the FBI narrowed down the anthrax to some US weapons lab. They also investigated some "suspect". They searched his house, went through all his records, etc. Last I heard, they were draining some swamp somewhere.
The whole anthrax affair is like something out of a mystery novel. Here are some stories on the progression of the event:
Personally I think the Hatfill dude is a scapegoat. Whoever that was behind the attacks is very good and is attempting to pin the blame on this scientist. I also think the US military is blocking the FBI investigation (this isn't anything new; it happens all the time, especially with CIA operations relating to drug trafficking, arms trafficking, supporting terrorists, and the like). What all this means is that you'll never find the real culprit. It's be another of those 'JFK' cases where the real criminals get away.
US rejection of biological weaposn ban
Here is a story which points out the US rejection of the biological weapons treaty that was being drafted.
I listed a liberal newspaper source. If you think it is all a bunch of lies, you can try searching for other sources. Everything I said (except my speculation that the US military is blocking the investigation) is fact. Any major newspaper, television, or radio would have covered it.
Don't stoop to their level... You wishing to lock them up simply means you become one.
I find it interesting that conservatives are proud to vote Republican, which is perfectly ok. But they always tie patriotism into it. I guess, as Ann Coulter claims, Democrats are all unpatriotic and anti-American. Although, it remains to be seen how a major political party and 50% of the population of a particular country can be unpatriotic. Doesn't that render the notion of a country meaningless?
Women are not equal to men. If this book claims so, I wonder how many other things are misleading and just plain wrong.
If women are equal, how come there are very few with power? How many female executives are there? How many female politicians? Until women acheive those goals, it is dubious at best to claim they are equal.
Someone could have said the same thing about 50 years prior to WWII. Would someone living in 1900 be surprised by 1950? Not really. You had jets in 1950 but you had planes in 1900; you had cars in 1950 but someone in 1900 would have expected it (given the horse carriage and the bicycle); how about tanks in 1950 vs none in 1900 (but people speculated on the possibility). How about someone living in 1850 vs 1900? Not much.
Most of the key advances can be predicted--not exactly but to some degree. Wireless communications (now) are amazing but scientists basically speculated with the discovery of electromagnetic waves in the late 1800's.
The reason 1900-1950 seems like a major shift is because of the type of technologies developed. During that era, weapons improved significantly. Regardless of what your opinion is or where you live, you will be impacted by weapons (or at least will notice it). In contrast, things like communications systems, transporation, etc are not noticeable. The most important development in the last 100+ years is the internet yet hardly anyone was even suprised by it. In contrast, if someone develops a weapon that can travel through the telephone network and kill people in a house, it would be hailed as revolutionary.
One problem is that people know very little about ancient civilizations (eg. we hardly know anything about the Incas or how they managed to build their temples in the middle of forests with hills.)
Apart from that, people tend to value the modern contributions more than anything else. I haven't read that book but it seems (at least from the brief review) seems to value Shakespeare more than say Plato. On a related note, people tend to value the end-results and engineering over the original products and science. For example, writing on papyrus was more important than wireless communications yet no one admits to that. Similarly, "primitive" mathematics is more important than computers. But if you look at "science", you'll find that computers are more "important" than "primitive" mathematics.
In any case, Western societies did contribute more to science. After all, science was invented by them.
For reasons that I can't figure out, modern science originated in Europe during the Renaissance instead of in more advanced societies such as Arabia, India, or China, or in ancient Greece or Rome.
The reason is very simple. Those other societies had strong religion. Religion in Europe was never as strong as in other countries (yes, the churches and their monarch allies ruled but it wasn't the same). Religion (I'm speaking of Christinity, Islam, and Judaism) was foreign. The native Europeans never had them before. Therefore, my theory is that it was easier to supplant religion with science. And do note that science and religion and mutually exclusive for the most part (there are many scientists and philosophers who were burned, killed or jailed.) In the other societies, religion was just too strong because it was "native" to the population from day one. If you note hinduism in India, for example, you'll note that it is part of life. You don't just learn religion, your life is structured around it. Same thing in countries like China. Why did the Communists in China invade Tibet? Religion is/was too strong in most Asian societies as well as places like Greece (how many Greek works can you find without reference to their Gods?).
No one wants to admit it but the enemy of science is religion. As long as religion controls the society, science will never take off. It was true back then; it is true now; and it will be true in the future.
Here's my analysis, which is about as scientific as those found in "The Bell Curve" Civilization, science etc. started in Mesopotamia, moved west to the Greeks, then west to the Romans, then west to Western Europe, then West to the US. The way I see it, it's going to move to Japan, then China, then back to the middle east. Of course, I'm ignoring the Incas, Mayas, etc., but that doesn't fit my pet theory, so in the spirit of the pseudoscience exhibited in the aforementioned book, I'll just ignore them.
Your theory is too simplistic. You are totally ignoring the Chinese and Indian civilizations. Then, you have the Mongols, who didn't contribute anything to science but were the most militaristic and most powerful civilization of all time. Without tieing all these together, the theory falls apart.
I think the thing you are overlooking is the fact that the past was very different from now. In particular, civilizations were very isolated with only minimal contact between them. The notion that a certain region dominated is highly misleading and only started becoming popular in recent times (mainly due to advances in travel and communication).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:but is it undercutting its own "superiority"?
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
I personally claim that the downfall of science is correlated with the ascent of capitalism. People have always valued money but money hasn't been as powerful as it is today. The discrepancy in wealth is increasing to dangerous levels.
You might say money/wealth has always been the same. Well, you are wrong. There is value attached to money. The value can be translated to power. It may mean more or less depending on the situation. For instance, under aritocratic societies money was weaker than now. Some powerful, influential aristocrats weren't very rich (some were on the verge of bankruptcy too). Right now, on the other hand, money can be translated to power more easily.
Protect Europe from what? Terrorists? Drug dealers? Evil Russia? Evil China?
Most of the US military is not protecting anything. Why else would you have US troops is more than 100 countries? There is very little protection and a lot of empire building going on...
Its PC to elevate the idiots and lazy a$$'s to the average persons status thereby letting them reproduce and completely f()king over evolution and survival of the fittest.
I find it interesting that social Darwinists subscribe to a view that has nothing to do with scientific evolution. The concept "survival of the fittest" does not mean what you think it does! By fittest, Darwin did not mean to say that the strongest, most powerful, etc will survive. Instead, 'fittest' means the ones that adapt. A hyena survives in the savannah even though it is "weaker" than a lion in most aspects. Why? Because it adapts!
Before you start claiming evolution, go and read up on it first...you just might learn something!
Both North Korea and Iran have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. With that, they gave up their "right" to develop nuclear weapons.
I could be wrong but I think North Korea pulled out of the NNPT, which is legal.
Like it or not, but the US provides security for a majority of the world.
Apparently your history is severly lacking. What USA provides is not world security, rather it is security for itself. Countries are not altruistic--they cannot be. Everyone just acts for their self-interest. I don't see how you can honestly say that USA provides security for everyone when most of hte countries it is involved in carry out mass atrocities (eg. Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc).
The only security USA provides is itself. But even then, it is highly questionable of its effect. The vast majority of US problems are its own making (due to allying with the devil). How did Usama bin Laden gain his expertise and strength? The US govt will completely deny it but it was USA that funded and more importantly trained Usama bin Laden and his followers. Al-Qaida uses the same tactics it learned from the CIA. Where did Saddam Hussein come from? Yep, you guessed it. USA, along with France and Germany, was the one that supported him (he would have collapsed without foreign support). He got all his chemical weapons and biological agents (however little left) from those countries (with USA paying for most of it).
USA destabilizes and harms the world more than you think. You will probably never realize it because you are blind. It's just like how the British during British Colonialism actually believed that they were doing a good thing and educating the savages when in fact it was destabilizing all the other countries and weakening itself. Britain had the most powerful military just before WWII. Yet Britain was almost wiped out by Germany. Why? Because all its troops were spread out all over the world in all their colonies. USA is no different now. It has its troops in over 100 countries! There is very little defense...and lots of imperialism!
One of the few times this has happened in the past was when the British abandoned biological and chemical weapons in the 1950s. What happened? Everyone else carried on or accelerated their programmes.
I don't know what your definition of everyone, but the only countries that have biological weapons are USA and Russia (some claim Isreal but I'm not so sure). No one accelerated their program and others didn't even undertake them. On top of being too costly, it is too dangerous.
Chemical weapons, on the other hand, are another story. But chemical weapons are poor man's WMD so no one really researchs it except the poor countries.
But the point is that oftentimes our military research turns out to have benefits in the civilian world.
That is dumb reasonsing. If you really wanted research to benefit humanity why not spend it directly on science? It would be far more effective and benefitial.
I don't think research for biological weapons is legal in the US?? So, I think this was misleading in the title of the post here....this does NOT seem to be biological weapons research.
What are you talking about? USA and Russia (along with rumours of Isreal) are the only countries to have an active biological weapon program. I don't know where you get the idea it is illegal. As a matter of fact, USA is also the country that keeps UN resolution to ban biological weapons.
Lastly, where did the Anthrax Assasin come from? Where did the Anthrax the assasin used come from?
The weapons manufacturers and the warmongers just don't care about any of those things. Whatever that kills the enemy is good enough for them.
I agree with your--and Bill Joy's--view that biological weapons are the worst weapons on earth. They will kill less than nuclear weapons but the long-term impact will be several magnitudes higher. Biological weapons are the only ones that can impact nature. Nuclear weapons are limited to a certain area (for the most part).
How? Why is there a difference? How do you know they are different? I know that you don't hear much about the private ones, but I imagine the same things happen there. I don't see how it would be different.
My view is closer to the spirit of the law. Creating a totally new category (by US govt of all things; if anything, it should be by the ICRC) is not standard practice.
----
Clicking on the main page only shows like 30(?) postings...
So you are saying Nazism is a faith?:> Since a neo-Nazi would never equate Nazism with faith, I guess you are just using that name for fun and to anger some...
The reason you don't see an open frontpage (For sake of argument) is the people who donate time to projects typically have themselves in mind as a main customer.
I agree but would like to add one thing. A serious problem with open-source software is that there seems to be a lack of subject experts or just general users helping out. You'll find that nearly every project is driven by software developers. This is fine for "tools", but when it comes to some general application you really need users and other experts contributing. A lot of projects can be significantly improved if some major users started contributing with the design, etc.
If you can't get a clue on how the world doesn't have to spin around the US' little finger anymore, you deserve to get your jobs outsourced.
What's to stop jobs that are going to India from being outsourced to another country, in oh 10 years? As the poster below points out, the #1 reason for outsourcing is the cost. If the cost of living in India were the same as USA, India would be equal (and hence few would outsource there).
You will never build up your country--or any other country for that matter--with capitalism. Capitalists only worship one thing: money. They don't even care about their country. These captitalists that help you now will also be your enemy. The day will come when they will happily move on to another country where wages are even lower (and the population can carry out the jobs). Capitalists will hold a gun to your head and you will be a slave to it. This gun will be none other than capital.
BTW, no one deserves to get jobs outsourced... I know capitalists like you don't care but you are so wrong.
When people refer to CEOs, they generally mean medium to large sized corporations. Yes, small size companies have CEOs but that's not what people are talking about. Perhaps with the trend where the number of small businesses are increasing, it will change.
Otherwise, why else would I be willing to stay up working till 12:09 in the morning, and know I have to get up bright and early tomorrow morning?
Can't you say the same thing about a lot of other people? There are a lot of workers who work just like you do. They work long hours and get paid "little" for that extra work. In fact, a lot of software developers work very long hours and don't really get compensated (ask how many programmers have worked long hours and weekends). And how about those in other, poorer, countries where people work 12+ hours every day while all the benefits accrue to the executives and owners back in wealthy countries? Do you think when say ExxonMobil or Nike or whatever CEOs make a lot of money that there aren't workers who work even longer doing something you have never heard of, in some country you have never heard of?
The other thing people forget, is that there is no backup for the owner of a company. There is no unemployment insurance. I pay for my own medical insurance.
The reason it is like that is because you get compensated for it. Regular employees actually pay for unemployment insurance (it is not free). It seems free because it is subsidized (eg. when you work you subsidize someone else; when you don't, someone else subsidizes you).
And if the guy working for me screws up I do his job or I get in trouble-- because I can't say, oops, sorry, my subordinate screwed up. So we face intense pressure, risk, and work hard. Why shouldn't we be compensated?
Well, if you look around, you'll find that the CEOs actually manage to avoid the trouble. How many companies have gone from being profitable to a total loss? How many CEOs have destroyed companies? How many CEOs have been fired? Well, not many. Most CEO compensation actually "rewards" CEOs when they resign (they are never fired). It's called golden parachutes.
This all boils down to capitalism. Is there such a thing as "too much" compensation? If you are a capitalist, there is no such thing as someone being overpaid. Those that disagree with capitalism do subscribe to the view that some people are overpaid. Such people, like me, attach a value to a job. So it is hard for me to ever accept how say Micheal Eisner of Disney could have made $100million in one year (in the 90's) or how Grasso of NYSE could make $100million for deferred compensation (this year), when more "valuable" jobs (say police officers, or teachers, or scientists or whatever) get 100x less. Yes, this is a stupid view--but then again, I'm not a capitalist!
In any case, you are probably a "good" CEO. Most of what I said probably doesn't apply to you. Perhaps you will never engage in questionable ethics. Perhaps you will never get paid $100million in one year. Perhaps you work harder than anyone else in your company. But, there are many--I would claim majority--who aren't like you.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think you can have engineering (i.e.applied science) without science? All major advances have theoretical research behind them. Without it, a country would not advance its science. USA, Europe, Japan, and others, would not be where they are without the scientific research they carried out a long time ago. In the short term, engineering and practical research is what matters; but in the long term, science is what matters.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree with most of what you say. In fact, I claim that humans stopped evolving thousands of years ago. Things that you mentioned along with others like equality, courts, police, democracy, science, medicine, and so forth basically means that humans don't evolve anymore. For example, instead of combating some disease, you run up to some shop and buy some medicine. So people that would not surive in an evolutionary sense, end up surviving. In addition, due some advances like farming, human populations can literally grow to some crazy level.
Having said all that, my original point against the author still stands. The original person, who is a social Darwinist, doesn't know what he is talking about. Also, social Darwinist justifcations based on scientific evolution are bogus. This is no different than fascists trying to justify their system using evolution when in fact, fascism is a political system and doesn't have anything to do with animal behaviour.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The type of stuff that the story talks about has only one use: weapons. All this boils down to what you believe. The warmongers and weapons manufactuers will obviously hide what they are doing--it has always been like that. You will never find "proof" that anyone is involved in any WMD. Try finding how Agent Orange was developed and you will either find nothing, or will find that it is used for "civilian" use.
My view is that the cited research has no purpose other than weapons. Scientists do not create new, lethal germs or chemicals just to develop an antidote (at least not like here).
You may not agree with that but that is how I see it. Developing a disease, germ, or anything, without any cure has 'warmonger' written all over it. This is the computer equivalent of researchers creating an ultimate computer virus just to study how to defend it. The only people who use such justification are the weapons researchers in military labs.
Anthrax Assasin
From what I recall, the FBI narrowed down the anthrax to some US weapons lab. They also investigated some "suspect". They searched his house, went through all his records, etc. Last I heard, they were draining some swamp somewhere.
The whole anthrax affair is like something out of a mystery novel. Here are some stories on the progression of the event:
Anthrax power production by US military
Underwater story
Chief Suspect, Steven Hatfill
Personally I think the Hatfill dude is a scapegoat. Whoever that was behind the attacks is very good and is attempting to pin the blame on this scientist. I also think the US military is blocking the FBI investigation (this isn't anything new; it happens all the time, especially with CIA operations relating to drug trafficking, arms trafficking, supporting terrorists, and the like). What all this means is that you'll never find the real culprit. It's be another of those 'JFK' cases where the real criminals get away.
US rejection of biological weaposn ban
Here is a story which points out the US rejection of the biological weapons treaty that was being drafted.
I listed a liberal newspaper source. If you think it is all a bunch of lies, you can try searching for other sources. Everything I said (except my speculation that the US military is blocking the investigation) is fact. Any major newspaper, television, or radio would have covered it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Don't stoop to their level... You wishing to lock them up simply means you become one.
I find it interesting that conservatives are proud to vote Republican, which is perfectly ok. But they always tie patriotism into it. I guess, as Ann Coulter claims, Democrats are all unpatriotic and anti-American. Although, it remains to be seen how a major political party and 50% of the population of a particular country can be unpatriotic. Doesn't that render the notion of a country meaningless?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Women are not equal to men. If this book claims so, I wonder how many other things are misleading and just plain wrong.
If women are equal, how come there are very few with power? How many female executives are there? How many female politicians? Until women acheive those goals, it is dubious at best to claim they are equal.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Someone could have said the same thing about 50 years prior to WWII. Would someone living in 1900 be surprised by 1950? Not really. You had jets in 1950 but you had planes in 1900; you had cars in 1950 but someone in 1900 would have expected it (given the horse carriage and the bicycle); how about tanks in 1950 vs none in 1900 (but people speculated on the possibility). How about someone living in 1850 vs 1900? Not much.
Most of the key advances can be predicted--not exactly but to some degree. Wireless communications (now) are amazing but scientists basically speculated with the discovery of electromagnetic waves in the late 1800's.
The reason 1900-1950 seems like a major shift is because of the type of technologies developed. During that era, weapons improved significantly. Regardless of what your opinion is or where you live, you will be impacted by weapons (or at least will notice it). In contrast, things like communications systems, transporation, etc are not noticeable. The most important development in the last 100+ years is the internet yet hardly anyone was even suprised by it. In contrast, if someone develops a weapon that can travel through the telephone network and kill people in a house, it would be hailed as revolutionary.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
One problem is that people know very little about ancient civilizations (eg. we hardly know anything about the Incas or how they managed to build their temples in the middle of forests with hills.)
Apart from that, people tend to value the modern contributions more than anything else. I haven't read that book but it seems (at least from the brief review) seems to value Shakespeare more than say Plato. On a related note, people tend to value the end-results and engineering over the original products and science. For example, writing on papyrus was more important than wireless communications yet no one admits to that. Similarly, "primitive" mathematics is more important than computers. But if you look at "science", you'll find that computers are more "important" than "primitive" mathematics.
In any case, Western societies did contribute more to science. After all, science was invented by them.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
For reasons that I can't figure out, modern science originated in Europe during the Renaissance instead of in more advanced societies such as Arabia, India, or China, or in ancient Greece or Rome.
The reason is very simple. Those other societies had strong religion. Religion in Europe was never as strong as in other countries (yes, the churches and their monarch allies ruled but it wasn't the same). Religion (I'm speaking of Christinity, Islam, and Judaism) was foreign. The native Europeans never had them before. Therefore, my theory is that it was easier to supplant religion with science. And do note that science and religion and mutually exclusive for the most part (there are many scientists and philosophers who were burned, killed or jailed.) In the other societies, religion was just too strong because it was "native" to the population from day one. If you note hinduism in India, for example, you'll note that it is part of life. You don't just learn religion, your life is structured around it. Same thing in countries like China. Why did the Communists in China invade Tibet? Religion is/was too strong in most Asian societies as well as places like Greece (how many Greek works can you find without reference to their Gods?).
No one wants to admit it but the enemy of science is religion. As long as religion controls the society, science will never take off. It was true back then; it is true now; and it will be true in the future.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Here's my analysis, which is about as scientific as those found in "The Bell Curve" Civilization, science etc. started in Mesopotamia, moved west to the Greeks, then west to the Romans, then west to Western Europe, then West to the US. The way I see it, it's going to move to Japan, then China, then back to the middle east. Of course, I'm ignoring the Incas, Mayas, etc., but that doesn't fit my pet theory, so in the spirit of the pseudoscience exhibited in the aforementioned book, I'll just ignore them.
Your theory is too simplistic. You are totally ignoring the Chinese and Indian civilizations. Then, you have the Mongols, who didn't contribute anything to science but were the most militaristic and most powerful civilization of all time. Without tieing all these together, the theory falls apart.
I think the thing you are overlooking is the fact that the past was very different from now. In particular, civilizations were very isolated with only minimal contact between them. The notion that a certain region dominated is highly misleading and only started becoming popular in recent times (mainly due to advances in travel and communication).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I personally claim that the downfall of science is correlated with the ascent of capitalism. People have always valued money but money hasn't been as powerful as it is today. The discrepancy in wealth is increasing to dangerous levels.
You might say money/wealth has always been the same. Well, you are wrong. There is value attached to money. The value can be translated to power. It may mean more or less depending on the situation. For instance, under aritocratic societies money was weaker than now. Some powerful, influential aristocrats weren't very rich (some were on the verge of bankruptcy too). Right now, on the other hand, money can be translated to power more easily.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Protect Europe from what? Terrorists? Drug dealers? Evil Russia? Evil China?
Most of the US military is not protecting anything. Why else would you have US troops is more than 100 countries? There is very little protection and a lot of empire building going on...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Its PC to elevate the idiots and lazy a$$'s to the average persons status thereby letting them reproduce and completely f()king over evolution and survival of the fittest.
I find it interesting that social Darwinists subscribe to a view that has nothing to do with scientific evolution. The concept "survival of the fittest" does not mean what you think it does! By fittest, Darwin did not mean to say that the strongest, most powerful, etc will survive. Instead, 'fittest' means the ones that adapt. A hyena survives in the savannah even though it is "weaker" than a lion in most aspects. Why? Because it adapts!
Before you start claiming evolution, go and read up on it first...you just might learn something!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Both North Korea and Iran have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. With that, they gave up their "right" to develop nuclear weapons.
I could be wrong but I think North Korea pulled out of the NNPT, which is legal.
Like it or not, but the US provides security for a majority of the world.
Apparently your history is severly lacking. What USA provides is not world security, rather it is security for itself. Countries are not altruistic--they cannot be. Everyone just acts for their self-interest. I don't see how you can honestly say that USA provides security for everyone when most of hte countries it is involved in carry out mass atrocities (eg. Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc).
The only security USA provides is itself. But even then, it is highly questionable of its effect. The vast majority of US problems are its own making (due to allying with the devil). How did Usama bin Laden gain his expertise and strength? The US govt will completely deny it but it was USA that funded and more importantly trained Usama bin Laden and his followers. Al-Qaida uses the same tactics it learned from the CIA. Where did Saddam Hussein come from? Yep, you guessed it. USA, along with France and Germany, was the one that supported him (he would have collapsed without foreign support). He got all his chemical weapons and biological agents (however little left) from those countries (with USA paying for most of it).
USA destabilizes and harms the world more than you think. You will probably never realize it because you are blind. It's just like how the British during British Colonialism actually believed that they were doing a good thing and educating the savages when in fact it was destabilizing all the other countries and weakening itself. Britain had the most powerful military just before WWII. Yet Britain was almost wiped out by Germany. Why? Because all its troops were spread out all over the world in all their colonies. USA is no different now. It has its troops in over 100 countries! There is very little defense...and lots of imperialism!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
One of the few times this has happened in the past was when the British abandoned biological and chemical weapons in the 1950s. What happened? Everyone else carried on or accelerated their programmes.
I don't know what your definition of everyone, but the only countries that have biological weapons are USA and Russia (some claim Isreal but I'm not so sure). No one accelerated their program and others didn't even undertake them. On top of being too costly, it is too dangerous.
Chemical weapons, on the other hand, are another story. But chemical weapons are poor man's WMD so no one really researchs it except the poor countries.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But the point is that oftentimes our military research turns out to have benefits in the civilian world.
That is dumb reasonsing. If you really wanted research to benefit humanity why not spend it directly on science? It would be far more effective and benefitial.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think research for biological weapons is legal in the US?? So, I think this was misleading in the title of the post here....this does NOT seem to be biological weapons research.
What are you talking about? USA and Russia (along with rumours of Isreal) are the only countries to have an active biological weapon program. I don't know where you get the idea it is illegal. As a matter of fact, USA is also the country that keeps UN resolution to ban biological weapons.
Lastly, where did the Anthrax Assasin come from? Where did the Anthrax the assasin used come from?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
When did USA use chemical and biological weapons?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The weapons manufacturers and the warmongers just don't care about any of those things. Whatever that kills the enemy is good enough for them.
I agree with your--and Bill Joy's--view that biological weapons are the worst weapons on earth. They will kill less than nuclear weapons but the long-term impact will be several magnitudes higher. Biological weapons are the only ones that can impact nature. Nuclear weapons are limited to a certain area (for the most part).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How? Why is there a difference? How do you know they are different? I know that you don't hear much about the private ones, but I imagine the same things happen there. I don't see how it would be different.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I was indeed mistaken about your nationality. In any case, here are two articles relating to the issue:
Red Cross "clarifies" definition
analysis by Guardian newspaper
My view is closer to the spirit of the law. Creating a totally new category (by US govt of all things; if anything, it should be by the ICRC) is not standard practice.
----
Clicking on the main page only shows like 30(?) postings...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
thanks... never thought of that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So you are saying Nazism is a faith? :> Since a neo-Nazi would never equate Nazism with faith, I guess you are just using that name for fun and to anger some...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The reason you don't see an open frontpage (For sake of argument) is the people who donate time to projects typically have themselves in mind as a main customer.
I agree but would like to add one thing. A serious problem with open-source software is that there seems to be a lack of subject experts or just general users helping out. You'll find that nearly every project is driven by software developers. This is fine for "tools", but when it comes to some general application you really need users and other experts contributing. A lot of projects can be significantly improved if some major users started contributing with the design, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you can't get a clue on how the world doesn't have to spin around the US' little finger anymore, you deserve to get your jobs outsourced.
What's to stop jobs that are going to India from being outsourced to another country, in oh 10 years? As the poster below points out, the #1 reason for outsourcing is the cost. If the cost of living in India were the same as USA, India would be equal (and hence few would outsource there).
You will never build up your country--or any other country for that matter--with capitalism. Capitalists only worship one thing: money. They don't even care about their country. These captitalists that help you now will also be your enemy. The day will come when they will happily move on to another country where wages are even lower (and the population can carry out the jobs). Capitalists will hold a gun to your head and you will be a slave to it. This gun will be none other than capital.
BTW, no one deserves to get jobs outsourced... I know capitalists like you don't care but you are so wrong.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
When people refer to CEOs, they generally mean medium to large sized corporations. Yes, small size companies have CEOs but that's not what people are talking about. Perhaps with the trend where the number of small businesses are increasing, it will change.
Otherwise, why else would I be willing to stay up working till 12:09 in the morning, and know I have to get up bright and early tomorrow morning?
Can't you say the same thing about a lot of other people? There are a lot of workers who work just like you do. They work long hours and get paid "little" for that extra work. In fact, a lot of software developers work very long hours and don't really get compensated (ask how many programmers have worked long hours and weekends). And how about those in other, poorer, countries where people work 12+ hours every day while all the benefits accrue to the executives and owners back in wealthy countries? Do you think when say ExxonMobil or Nike or whatever CEOs make a lot of money that there aren't workers who work even longer doing something you have never heard of, in some country you have never heard of?
The other thing people forget, is that there is no backup for the owner of a company. There is no unemployment insurance. I pay for my own medical insurance.
The reason it is like that is because you get compensated for it. Regular employees actually pay for unemployment insurance (it is not free). It seems free because it is subsidized (eg. when you work you subsidize someone else; when you don't, someone else subsidizes you).
And if the guy working for me screws up I do his job or I get in trouble-- because I can't say, oops, sorry, my subordinate screwed up. So we face intense pressure, risk, and work hard. Why shouldn't we be compensated?
Well, if you look around, you'll find that the CEOs actually manage to avoid the trouble. How many companies have gone from being profitable to a total loss? How many CEOs have destroyed companies? How many CEOs have been fired? Well, not many. Most CEO compensation actually "rewards" CEOs when they resign (they are never fired). It's called golden parachutes.
This all boils down to capitalism. Is there such a thing as "too much" compensation? If you are a capitalist, there is no such thing as someone being overpaid. Those that disagree with capitalism do subscribe to the view that some people are overpaid. Such people, like me, attach a value to a job. So it is hard for me to ever accept how say Micheal Eisner of Disney could have made $100million in one year (in the 90's) or how Grasso of NYSE could make $100million for deferred compensation (this year), when more "valuable" jobs (say police officers, or teachers, or scientists or whatever) get 100x less. Yes, this is a stupid view--but then again, I'm not a capitalist!
In any case, you are probably a "good" CEO. Most of what I said probably doesn't apply to you. Perhaps you will never engage in questionable ethics. Perhaps you will never get paid $100million in one year. Perhaps you work harder than anyone else in your company. But, there are many--I would claim majority--who aren't like you.
Sivaram Velauthapillai