I suppose if you subscribe to the Confucious school of thought and like simplicity in your definitions... I personally go with more complex definitions:)
IGNORE THE OTHER POST!!!!
NOT QUOTED IN ORDER.. other post has some errors due to use of less than sign:(
(And, again, I refer you to the fact that OpenSSL, one of the only two SSL/TLS toolkits in widespread use [besides NSS], still being 0.x , but when the users have a problem, their developers respond, and the developers don't suddenly introduce changes that impact performance, telling the users "It's not 1.0".)
That is in the minority. A large majority of software with less than 1.0 are not very good. This is a standard practice. This doesn't mean that I (albeit a home user only) does not use less than 1 software. But it does mean that I don't expect much out of it. If it works, great; otherwise, I am not going to be hostile to the developers. (BTW, perhaps an even better example is Mozilla Firebird, which I'm using now. It's great... a little unstable... but quite usuable).
We're on opposite sides of a subjective point here...
I don't see this as being very subjective. It is WELL KNOWN that less than 1 software isn't really release quality. That's just standard practice. It's not as if I'm making this stuff up so it is somewhat objective.
Regardless of the majority behavior (greather 50%) of software projects where 1.0 or later is considered stable, lots of software has, and will continued to be, presented to the end users, and end up in a production position.
Yes...but it doesn't prove anything. You can't make a strategic decision based on such a result. The probability of dying in a car crash when not wearing a seat belt is very high. However, there is a nonzero probability that you will SURVIVE without wearing a seat belt. Now, would you go around driving your car without a seat belt? Same thing here...
However he did not push his work out to the public under a big disclaimer explaining "Don't use this". He did the opposite. And now that he has a big userbase of people, allegedly including people who are putting their safety at risk, and he's cursing them out.
First of all, there are hardly any software which says 'do not use this'. Even version 0.2 software have no disclaimers (other than the standard no liability for damage stuff). In any case, I don't think he is implying that you shouldn't use it. Rather, he is saying that this is a progress-in-work and hence may be flawed.
As far as people putting their lives on the line, I understand your point. However, these people chose to adopt an early work (they are early adopters). The risk is always there that the software won't work as intended. Note that the issue here is flawed software, and not an ethical problem. In other words, it's not as if FreeNet all of a sudden started disclosing identities on purpose. As an analogy, the secure computer that you take for granted might actually have a bug. One day, someone might discover how to break into your computer due to some software bug (say a buffer overflow:) ). Now, your life might be put at risk (if this computer is very important). But can you really blame the software (especially if it is Free Software with no guarantees or liability)? I see the same issue here.
(And, again, I refer you to the fact that OpenSSL, one of the only two SSL/TLS toolkits in widespread use [besides NSS], still being 0.x , but when the users have a problem, their developers respond, and the developers don't suddenly introduce changes that impact performance, telling the users "It's not 1.0".)
That is in the minority. A large majority of software with
We're on opposite sides of a subjective point here...
I don't see this as being very subjective. It is WELL KNOWN that Regardless of the majority behavior (>50%) of software projects where 1.0 or later is considered stable, lots of software has, and will continued to be, presented to the end users, and end up in a production position.
Yes...but it doesn't prove anything. You can't make a strategic decision based on such a result. The probability of dying in a car crash when not wearing a seat belt is very high. However, there is a nonzero probability that you will SURVIVE without wearing a seat belt. Now, would you go around driving your car without a seat belt? Same thing here...
However he did not push his work out to the public under a big disclaimer explaining "Don't use this". He did the opposite. And now that he has a big userbase of people, allegedly including people who are putting their safety at risk, and he's cursing them out.
First of all, there are hardly any software which says 'do not use this'. Even version 0.2 software have no disclaimers (other than the standard no liability for damage stuff). In any case, I don't think he is implying that you shouldn't use it. Rather, he is saying that this is a progress-in-work and hence may be flawed.
As far as people putting their lives on the line, I understand your point. However, these people chose to adopt an early work (they are early adopters). The risk is always there that the software won't work as intended. Note that the issue here is flawed software, and not an ethical problem. In other words, it's not as if FreeNet all of a sudden started disclosing identities on purpose. As an analogy, the secure computer that you take for granted might actually have a bug. One day, someone might discover how to break into your computer due to some software bug (say a buffer overflow:) ). Now, your life might be put at risk (if this computer is very important). But can you really blame the software (especially if it is Free Software with no guarantees or liability)? I see the same issue here.
Don't even get me started on capitalism so I'm not going to go there (I'm anti-capitalist)...
Just because you spend money on electronic euqipment doens't mean anything. You don't have the right to go around claiming that you should have the "right" to receive a particular service.
Besides, you claim that YOU are the target customer. How do you know? Maybe they don't care about you? Just because you like something doesn't mean the supplier cares about you. For example, a lot of people drink beer but beer companies consider the young adult market (I think something like 18-30) to be crucial. All their advertising is tailored for them, all their promotions are for them, etc. Just because you are 45 and drink a lot of beer*** doesn't mean that they care much about you.
*** In no way am I claiming that you are 45, or that you drink a lot of beer;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I read reviews all the time. In particular, my favourites are RottenTomatoes and IMDB. But you can never tell what is good or bad. As a matter of fact, most people don't even read these reviews. As the guy below (response to you) says, reviews are often "elitist" in his opinion and are not worthy. Given circumstances such as that, you are never going to know if you like a movie in advance. Besides, it is all subjective. I find people dissing Matrix Reloaded while others praise it.
I didn't mean to imply that there would be ZERO films above 7+. I was slightly exaggerating but my point still stands.
Don't get me wrong. I use IMDB all the time. It is very useful. But when looking at artistic films, I just don't rely on IMDB that much. Instead I use aggregate critic reviews such at RottenTomatoes. I find that to be far more accurate. IMDB is only good for two things IMO: (i) finding info about the film, (ii) ratings for mainstream films.
I don't really think I have any films that I can recommend. Sorry:( I'm sure you've seen my favourite foreign films, which are hardly underrated (Trois Couleur trilogy, cinemas paradiso, Cidade de Deus, Farewell my Concubine, il Postino, Urga).
Funny thing is that the world governments tend to try and tell people that this is an objective decision when it's entirely subjective and tends to depend on who's paying for the ideological dissemination of information.
The worst thing is that the citizens of the world simply accept the govt propaganda as truth.
You made a mistake. Sandinistas are not freedom fighters according to the US govt (I assume you are talking about the US govt perspective). I think you had the Nicaraguan contras in mind (they were considered 'freedom fighters'). I have the best example (which is actually kind of ironic):
"Al Qaida" in 1989: freedom fighters
Al Qaida in 1999: terrorists
Usama bin Laden in 1989: key friend of USA
Usama bin Laden in 1999: public enemy #1
Needless to say, the same person/group carrying out hte same activities are considered differently.
...and not reporting the positive news out of Iraq.
What exactly is the positive news out of Iraq? That most people are still unemployed? That there are open revolts by citizens? That crime has increased by several magnitudes? What you are getting is pretty positive. Things are FAR WORSE than you are led to believe. For instance, very few journalists cover the deaths of innocent Iraqis which happen on a daily basis. When was the last time you heard an Iraqi death reported?
Your points still don't prove anything. Any software with a version less than 1 is still in its early stages. It's a standard software engineering practice to release the first "solid" version as 1.0. The fact that some of them are stable is a pure coincidence. I will guarantee you that the VAST MAJORITY of software with a version less than 1 is not very stable and lacks quality.
I'm not an anarchist but there is something about anarchism that most people don't understand.
You can very well have the same social institutions, structures, and relationships under anarchism. For example, you can have a school (a socialist institution) under anarchism without any problems. BUT there is one KEY difference. Any institution or relationship or structure under anarchism must be VOLUNTARY. So, you can still have a school where people are educated but they must be voluntary. In contrast, modern day schools (which are socialist; with some capitalist ones) are NOT voluntary.
Contrary to popular belief, anarchism is not chaos! Status-quo supporters in the early 1900's (who were mostly capitalists, colonialists, or imperialists) discredited anarchism by equating it with 'chaos', 'anarchy', and 'disorder'. An anarchist society will have none of that...
I know that some libertarians are too independent to ever join the party.
I'm not a liberatarian but most so-called liberatarians in USA are liberatarian/right or liberatarian/conservative. Hence, they end up watering down their principles and joining the Republicans.
By using a slash (i.e. x/y) you are implying that they are the same, when in fact they are not (unless you are anti-homosexual). I think the appropriate thing would be to use a comma (eg. x,y; or x, and y)
What I want is a service where I can download movies for unlimited viewing. I would happily pay for them, but NO ONE is competing in that space for profit.
What does this have to do with anything? Just because no one offers that service doesn't mean that you can just take it for granted? It may even happen that no one will EVER provide that service. Does that mean that you can justify your action based on that?
What sort of lame argument is that? There is no FUCKING way you will know IN ADVANCE whether you will like a film or not. Did it ever not occur to you that films are ART? Films are so subjective that you are never going to find all of them to your liking. You should know in advance when you buy it... Buying a bag full of pears and claiming you don't like some of them is the most idiotic thing ever...
It all depends on what you like but... if you go with the IMDB 7+ rating films, you are almost guaranteed to not to see any artistic films. In fact, I wonder how many foreign films are even listed at 7+. Of course, if you only like mainstream films and could care less about artistic films...
The "Revolution" in Cuba was merely the process of the USSR annexing it as a colony.
Let's all take your word for it *rollseyes* If it was a colony, did it ever gain indepence from USSR? Or, in your distorted views, does Putin still control Cuba?
Which was usually early on, and as fast as they could manage. Typically, they would fight alongside the grassroots groups if the groups could help them achieve absolute power. Once the socialists/communists gained control, the liquidation of opponents began.
It was not as soon as you are implying. Also, there is a difference between socialists and communists in some of these revolutions. For instance, the Russian revolution actually involved a counter-revolution. I am guessing you don't know about any of those things.
In general, it was not. However, some of the "liberation" groups were actually Soviet-funded colonial armies. They were as such pro-colonial movements.
That pretty much proves my point. Many of these so-called Communist movements were nothing more than anti-imperial, anti-colonial movements.
Yes, this monarchist would be a socialist if they claimed that this control was the natural result of the dialectic of history, on behalf of the ruling class, and the other gamut of lies socialists use in their power grab.
You clearly have no idea what any of these systems are. You are the first--and likely only--person who has ever claimed that monarchy and socialism/communism/marxism/trotskyism can be practiced together. I think you should read up on all these. You can start by studying monarchy, which you don't seem to know anything about.
The only thing to point out is that the socialist monarchs (the North Korean father and son, Castro, Pol Pot) are monarchs in every way except that they do not call themselves monarchs.
That is the most ludicrous thing I have heard in my life... ok, let's call these monarchs *rollseyes*
Socialism, after all, is the modern version of the old "divine right of Kings".
This discussion is pointless...since you seem to have no idea what you are talking about...
The even sillier stories come from the militia wackos. Most of what I know about Waco happens to be the truth (I tend to avoid government information organs myself).
I don't know how you can claim to know the truth when the vast majority of the information is "govt-controlled". I'm not saying I know the truth either. But at least I"m more sceptical of the sources...
There was a good reason to beseige the compound: Koresh was resisting arrest. As for attacking the compound, Koresh did this himself when he torched it.
People question whether Koresh torched hte compound himself. In any case, your argument that he was resisting arrest is weak at best. The actions that were carried out (including showing hostility (such as playing loud music at night), deploying heavy armour (such as tanks), etc) were unnecessary and beyond reasonable.
Apparently this documentary sheds some light on the matter. I haven't seen it myself but it's supposed to provide a different viewpoint. You might want to check it out if you are into the Waco stuff.
No, there is no cover-up of any kind going on with this. There can't be. Even if there were, the government controls very little of the media (PBS and NPR) and anyone else can and WILL say anything they want to.
I'm glad that you think that we live in a world where there is no propaganda or disinformation, and that govt has little control. This just goes to show that the propaganda is working. You might want to start with the Iraqi war and see how much control the govt has.
The far-left is like any group of zealots: they favor their own religions and oppose those of others.
THAT can be said of anyone. EVERYONE, whether a leftist, or on the right, or a moderate, or a centrist, or a conservative follow their own ideals. The centrists and the moderates, which you probably belong to, also has its own thoughts and ideas and force others to follow as well (it's just that you support the status quo, whereas others are either progressive (left) or regressive (right)).
Seriously, why would anyone be in favor of the far-left?
I don't think I can explain why people follow different ideologies. I just don't know. Why is someone a conservative while another is liberal? Why is someone a war-mongering Imperialist neoconservative while another is a non-interventionist (traditional) conservative? Why is someone a socialist while another is an anarchist? I think you should seek answers yourself. Whatever I say will simply pass through your head.
But if you must know why people are on the far-left instead of left or center-left, one key reason is that we (on the far-left) are radical. By definition, this means that we seek greater social change than others. If you wanted a smaller change, you might be on the left, or if you wanted even smaller change, you would be center-left. Of course, the right wing is the inverse of that. I'm an atheist and I only have ONE life. I'm not content wasting it as an economic slave to the capitalist overlords. Perhaps you are; but I am not!
Their policies of giving government rulers more power, and track record of horrific genocide and mass-executions of workers (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc) is pretty bad.
Painting everyone in a particular area of the econopolitical spectrum defies all logic...
Even worse than that of the far-right.
"Communism is a greater evil than fascism" they said, even as the fascists were gaining power and getting ready to commit the greatest genocide in written history.
Most of what you know about Waco is govt propaganda. Very little of the truth was broadcast by the corporate media. What happened back then is exactly what is happening right now with the Iraqi war. There was VERY LITTLE reason for the US govt to attack the compound.
And no, I'm not a David Koresh follower... I'm on the far-left and could care less about the religious crowd...
You are on weak ground there. Nearly every dictator, monarch, feudalist, colonialist, and totalitarian have claimed to act in the interest of the "people". What people say does not mean anything; what matters is their actions... also, you seem to have no understanding of socialism. Socialism is not simply control over economics! By your ill-informed views, even a monarchist would be considered as a socialist since they advocate control of the economy. Needless to say, monarchs are not socialists--although, in your misinformed world they probably are:(
This was not a revolution, but was in fact a Soviet invasion and conquest.
Explain...
Even then, the governments quickly banned grass roots groups.
The govt banned the groups once it started becoming totalitarian. You cannot blame the system for this, when the system has been drastically altered... This is just like how in say Africa, a lot of the independence, anti-colonial, movements were driven by the people (i.e. general population) but once the colonialists were driven out, some people converted the country into a dictatorship. You can hardly claim that the anti-colonialist movement was totalitarian.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad you like it...maybe your lack of intelligence in the subject matter is made up with your acknowledgement here ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I suppose if you subscribe to the Confucious school of thought and like simplicity in your definitions... I personally go with more complex definitions :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
IGNORE THE OTHER POST!!!! :(
...
:) ). Now, your life might be put at risk (if this computer is very important). But can you really blame the software (especially if it is Free Software with no guarantees or liability)? I see the same issue here.
NOT QUOTED IN ORDER.. other post has some errors due to use of less than sign
(And, again, I refer you to the fact that OpenSSL, one of the only two SSL/TLS toolkits in widespread use [besides NSS], still being 0.x , but when the users have a problem, their developers respond, and the developers don't suddenly introduce changes that impact performance, telling the users "It's not 1.0".)
That is in the minority. A large majority of software with less than 1.0 are not very good. This is a standard practice. This doesn't mean that I (albeit a home user only) does not use less than 1 software. But it does mean that I don't expect much out of it. If it works, great; otherwise, I am not going to be hostile to the developers. (BTW, perhaps an even better example is Mozilla Firebird, which I'm using now. It's great... a little unstable... but quite usuable).
We're on opposite sides of a subjective point here
I don't see this as being very subjective. It is WELL KNOWN that less than 1 software isn't really release quality. That's just standard practice. It's not as if I'm making this stuff up so it is somewhat objective.
Regardless of the majority behavior (greather 50%) of software projects where 1.0 or later is considered stable, lots of software has, and will continued to be, presented to the end users, and end up in a production position.
Yes...but it doesn't prove anything. You can't make a strategic decision based on such a result. The probability of dying in a car crash when not wearing a seat belt is very high. However, there is a nonzero probability that you will SURVIVE without wearing a seat belt. Now, would you go around driving your car without a seat belt? Same thing here...
However he did not push his work out to the public under a big disclaimer explaining "Don't use this". He did the opposite. And now that he has a big userbase of people, allegedly including people who are putting their safety at risk, and he's cursing them out.
First of all, there are hardly any software which says 'do not use this'. Even version 0.2 software have no disclaimers (other than the standard no liability for damage stuff). In any case, I don't think he is implying that you shouldn't use it. Rather, he is saying that this is a progress-in-work and hence may be flawed.
As far as people putting their lives on the line, I understand your point. However, these people chose to adopt an early work (they are early adopters). The risk is always there that the software won't work as intended. Note that the issue here is flawed software, and not an ethical problem. In other words, it's not as if FreeNet all of a sudden started disclosing identities on purpose. As an analogy, the secure computer that you take for granted might actually have a bug. One day, someone might discover how to break into your computer due to some software bug (say a buffer overflow
Sivaram Velauthapillai
NOT QUOTED IN ORDER
...
:) ). Now, your life might be put at risk (if this computer is very important). But can you really blame the software (especially if it is Free Software with no guarantees or liability)? I see the same issue here.
(And, again, I refer you to the fact that OpenSSL, one of the only two SSL/TLS toolkits in widespread use [besides NSS], still being 0.x , but when the users have a problem, their developers respond, and the developers don't suddenly introduce changes that impact performance, telling the users "It's not 1.0".)
That is in the minority. A large majority of software with
We're on opposite sides of a subjective point here
I don't see this as being very subjective. It is WELL KNOWN that
Regardless of the majority behavior (>50%) of software projects where 1.0 or later is considered stable, lots of software has, and will continued to be, presented to the end users, and end up in a production position.
Yes...but it doesn't prove anything. You can't make a strategic decision based on such a result. The probability of dying in a car crash when not wearing a seat belt is very high. However, there is a nonzero probability that you will SURVIVE without wearing a seat belt. Now, would you go around driving your car without a seat belt? Same thing here...
However he did not push his work out to the public under a big disclaimer explaining "Don't use this". He did the opposite. And now that he has a big userbase of people, allegedly including people who are putting their safety at risk, and he's cursing them out.
First of all, there are hardly any software which says 'do not use this'. Even version 0.2 software have no disclaimers (other than the standard no liability for damage stuff). In any case, I don't think he is implying that you shouldn't use it. Rather, he is saying that this is a progress-in-work and hence may be flawed.
As far as people putting their lives on the line, I understand your point. However, these people chose to adopt an early work (they are early adopters). The risk is always there that the software won't work as intended. Note that the issue here is flawed software, and not an ethical problem. In other words, it's not as if FreeNet all of a sudden started disclosing identities on purpose. As an analogy, the secure computer that you take for granted might actually have a bug. One day, someone might discover how to break into your computer due to some software bug (say a buffer overflow
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Don't even get me started on capitalism so I'm not going to go there (I'm anti-capitalist)...
;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Just because you spend money on electronic euqipment doens't mean anything. You don't have the right to go around claiming that you should have the "right" to receive a particular service.
Besides, you claim that YOU are the target customer. How do you know? Maybe they don't care about you? Just because you like something doesn't mean the supplier cares about you. For example, a lot of people drink beer but beer companies consider the young adult market (I think something like 18-30) to be crucial. All their advertising is tailored for them, all their promotions are for them, etc. Just because you are 45 and drink a lot of beer*** doesn't mean that they care much about you.
*** In no way am I claiming that you are 45, or that you drink a lot of beer
I read reviews all the time. In particular, my favourites are RottenTomatoes and IMDB. But you can never tell what is good or bad. As a matter of fact, most people don't even read these reviews. As the guy below (response to you) says, reviews are often "elitist" in his opinion and are not worthy. Given circumstances such as that, you are never going to know if you like a movie in advance. Besides, it is all subjective. I find people dissing Matrix Reloaded while others praise it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I didn't mean to imply that there would be ZERO films above 7+. I was slightly exaggerating but my point still stands.
:( I'm sure you've seen my favourite foreign films, which are hardly underrated (Trois Couleur trilogy, cinemas paradiso, Cidade de Deus, Farewell my Concubine, il Postino, Urga).
Don't get me wrong. I use IMDB all the time. It is very useful. But when looking at artistic films, I just don't rely on IMDB that much. Instead I use aggregate critic reviews such at RottenTomatoes. I find that to be far more accurate. IMDB is only good for two things IMO: (i) finding info about the film, (ii) ratings for mainstream films.
I don't really think I have any films that I can recommend. Sorry
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I came to a similar conclusion about you a while ago. Let's just end this discussion... we'll meet again...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Funny thing is that the world governments tend to try and tell people that this is an objective decision when it's entirely subjective and tends to depend on who's paying for the ideological dissemination of information.
The worst thing is that the citizens of the world simply accept the govt propaganda as truth.
eg 'Sandinistas' - 'Freedom Fighters'; 'Al Queda' - 'Terrorists'
You made a mistake. Sandinistas are not freedom fighters according to the US govt (I assume you are talking about the US govt perspective). I think you had the Nicaraguan contras in mind (they were considered 'freedom fighters'). I have the best example (which is actually kind of ironic):
"Al Qaida" in 1989: freedom fighters
Al Qaida in 1999: terrorists
Usama bin Laden in 1989: key friend of USA
Usama bin Laden in 1999: public enemy #1
Needless to say, the same person/group carrying out hte same activities are considered differently.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
...and not reporting the positive news out of Iraq.
What exactly is the positive news out of Iraq? That most people are still unemployed? That there are open revolts by citizens? That crime has increased by several magnitudes? What you are getting is pretty positive. Things are FAR WORSE than you are led to believe. For instance, very few journalists cover the deaths of innocent Iraqis which happen on a daily basis. When was the last time you heard an Iraqi death reported?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your points still don't prove anything. Any software with a version less than 1 is still in its early stages. It's a standard software engineering practice to release the first "solid" version as 1.0. The fact that some of them are stable is a pure coincidence. I will guarantee you that the VAST MAJORITY of software with a version less than 1 is not very stable and lacks quality.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not an anarchist but there is something about anarchism that most people don't understand.
You can very well have the same social institutions, structures, and relationships under anarchism. For example, you can have a school (a socialist institution) under anarchism without any problems. BUT there is one KEY difference. Any institution or relationship or structure under anarchism must be VOLUNTARY. So, you can still have a school where people are educated but they must be voluntary. In contrast, modern day schools (which are socialist; with some capitalist ones) are NOT voluntary.
Contrary to popular belief, anarchism is not chaos! Status-quo supporters in the early 1900's (who were mostly capitalists, colonialists, or imperialists) discredited anarchism by equating it with 'chaos', 'anarchy', and 'disorder'. An anarchist society will have none of that...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I know that some libertarians are too independent to ever join the party.
I'm not a liberatarian but most so-called liberatarians in USA are liberatarian/right or liberatarian/conservative. Hence, they end up watering down their principles and joining the Republicans.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
By using a slash (i.e. x/y) you are implying that they are the same, when in fact they are not (unless you are anti-homosexual). I think the appropriate thing would be to use a comma (eg. x,y; or x, and y)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What I want is a service where I can download movies for unlimited viewing. I would happily pay for them, but NO ONE is competing in that space for profit.
What does this have to do with anything? Just because no one offers that service doesn't mean that you can just take it for granted? It may even happen that no one will EVER provide that service. Does that mean that you can justify your action based on that?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What sort of lame argument is that? There is no FUCKING way you will know IN ADVANCE whether you will like a film or not. Did it ever not occur to you that films are ART? Films are so subjective that you are never going to find all of them to your liking. You should know in advance when you buy it... Buying a bag full of pears and claiming you don't like some of them is the most idiotic thing ever...
:(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It all depends on what you like but... if you go with the IMDB 7+ rating films, you are almost guaranteed to not to see any artistic films. In fact, I wonder how many foreign films are even listed at 7+. Of course, if you only like mainstream films and could care less about artistic films...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The "Revolution" in Cuba was merely the process of the USSR annexing it as a colony.
Let's all take your word for it *rollseyes* If it was a colony, did it ever gain indepence from USSR? Or, in your distorted views, does Putin still control Cuba?
Which was usually early on, and as fast as they could manage. Typically, they would fight alongside the grassroots groups if the groups could help them achieve absolute power. Once the socialists/communists gained control, the liquidation of opponents began.
It was not as soon as you are implying. Also, there is a difference between socialists and communists in some of these revolutions. For instance, the Russian revolution actually involved a counter-revolution. I am guessing you don't know about any of those things.
In general, it was not. However, some of the "liberation" groups were actually Soviet-funded colonial armies. They were as such pro-colonial movements.
That pretty much proves my point. Many of these so-called Communist movements were nothing more than anti-imperial, anti-colonial movements.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes, this monarchist would be a socialist if they claimed that this control was the natural result of the dialectic of history, on behalf of the ruling class, and the other gamut of lies socialists use in their power grab.
You clearly have no idea what any of these systems are. You are the first--and likely only--person who has ever claimed that monarchy and socialism/communism/marxism/trotskyism can be practiced together. I think you should read up on all these. You can start by studying monarchy, which you don't seem to know anything about.
The only thing to point out is that the socialist monarchs (the North Korean father and son, Castro, Pol Pot) are monarchs in every way except that they do not call themselves monarchs.
That is the most ludicrous thing I have heard in my life... ok, let's call these monarchs *rollseyes*
Socialism, after all, is the modern version of the old "divine right of Kings".
This discussion is pointless...since you seem to have no idea what you are talking about...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The even sillier stories come from the militia wackos. Most of what I know about Waco happens to be the truth (I tend to avoid government information organs myself).
I don't know how you can claim to know the truth when the vast majority of the information is "govt-controlled". I'm not saying I know the truth either. But at least I"m more sceptical of the sources...
There was a good reason to beseige the compound: Koresh was resisting arrest. As for attacking the compound, Koresh did this himself when he torched it.
People question whether Koresh torched hte compound himself. In any case, your argument that he was resisting arrest is weak at best. The actions that were carried out (including showing hostility (such as playing loud music at night), deploying heavy armour (such as tanks), etc) were unnecessary and beyond reasonable.
Apparently this documentary sheds some light on the matter. I haven't seen it myself but it's supposed to provide a different viewpoint. You might want to check it out if you are into the Waco stuff.
No, there is no cover-up of any kind going on with this. There can't be. Even if there were, the government controls very little of the media (PBS and NPR) and anyone else can and WILL say anything they want to.
I'm glad that you think that we live in a world where there is no propaganda or disinformation, and that govt has little control. This just goes to show that the propaganda is working. You might want to start with the Iraqi war and see how much control the govt has.
The far-left is like any group of zealots: they favor their own religions and oppose those of others.
THAT can be said of anyone. EVERYONE, whether a leftist, or on the right, or a moderate, or a centrist, or a conservative follow their own ideals. The centrists and the moderates, which you probably belong to, also has its own thoughts and ideas and force others to follow as well (it's just that you support the status quo, whereas others are either progressive (left) or regressive (right)).
Seriously, why would anyone be in favor of the far-left?
I don't think I can explain why people follow different ideologies. I just don't know. Why is someone a conservative while another is liberal? Why is someone a war-mongering Imperialist neoconservative while another is a non-interventionist (traditional) conservative? Why is someone a socialist while another is an anarchist? I think you should seek answers yourself. Whatever I say will simply pass through your head.
But if you must know why people are on the far-left instead of left or center-left, one key reason is that we (on the far-left) are radical. By definition, this means that we seek greater social change than others. If you wanted a smaller change, you might be on the left, or if you wanted even smaller change, you would be center-left. Of course, the right wing is the inverse of that. I'm an atheist and I only have ONE life. I'm not content wasting it as an economic slave to the capitalist overlords. Perhaps you are; but I am not!
Their policies of giving government rulers more power, and track record of horrific genocide and mass-executions of workers (Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc) is pretty bad.
Painting everyone in a particular area of the econopolitical spectrum defies all logic...
Even worse than that of the far-right.
"Communism is a greater evil than fascism" they said, even as the fascists were gaining power and getting ready to commit the greatest genocide in written history.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Most of what you know about Waco is govt propaganda. Very little of the truth was broadcast by the corporate media. What happened back then is exactly what is happening right now with the Iraqi war. There was VERY LITTLE reason for the US govt to attack the compound.
And no, I'm not a David Koresh follower... I'm on the far-left and could care less about the religious crowd...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are on weak ground there. Nearly every dictator, monarch, feudalist, colonialist, and totalitarian have claimed to act in the interest of the "people". What people say does not mean anything; what matters is their actions... also, you seem to have no understanding of socialism. Socialism is not simply control over economics! By your ill-informed views, even a monarchist would be considered as a socialist since they advocate control of the economy. Needless to say, monarchs are not socialists--although, in your misinformed world they probably are :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
NT
This was not a revolution, but was in fact a Soviet invasion and conquest.
Explain...
Even then, the governments quickly banned grass roots groups.
The govt banned the groups once it started becoming totalitarian. You cannot blame the system for this, when the system has been drastically altered... This is just like how in say Africa, a lot of the independence, anti-colonial, movements were driven by the people (i.e. general population) but once the colonialists were driven out, some people converted the country into a dictatorship. You can hardly claim that the anti-colonialist movement was totalitarian.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Crack is cool. You an become a crackhead like all the addicts... Obviously you don't live in the right part of town ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai