I don't doubt your words about rape, only the interpretation. Did you see the evidence that Saddam himself permitted his men to rape a child? This is doubtful to me. And even if that is true, how Saddam is different from some Latvian (or was it Lithuanian) politicians who were IIRC arrested for child abuse? How is it different from France with their rumoured love for kids among the elite? How about Vatican, do you want the US to attack it? BTW, I do. As cynical as that may sound to you, isolated incidents do not mean much on a grand scheme of things. Several raped children do not make Saddam evil (even if he did it himself) as a country leader (as a person, may be).
As for me sitting behind the monitor, indeed, it is nice to be safe. This makes me somewhat less informed, but may be more objective.
Regarding the evidence, I thought there was plenty of evidence that the US supplied biological and nuclear materials for Saddam's weapon programs, that the US gave a green light to attack against Kurds and that all this was done to further American goals in the region, including oil and weakening of Islamic states.
9-11 might have not been done by Bush, but there are some hard facts, which are also hard to ignore. Hard fact 1 - there are a lot of shady aspects (fighters on the ground, Bush mentioning a TV broadcast, etc., etc.). Hard fact 2 - several investigations into 9-11 were hindered very much (by Bush administration).
I like my understanding of democracy, thank you very much. It's the Americans who have to constantly reassess their definitions, so that the US still conforms to it. To an outsider your system of legalised corruption (campaign contributions) looks horribly undemocratic. Not to mention the two-party system, where only 10% of the seats in Senate are competitive. The scale of election fraud can rival Uzbekistan and the prevalence of groupthink will soon put North Korea to shame. (exaggerating a bit)
Iraqis are not free to live in peace. I hope they will manage (with the help of American and international forces), but the reality is that different factions there are not accustomed to democratic process. This can lead to a situation similar to Afganistan (in the bad case). To an American it always looks very easy from the outside. Just come to a country, change everything the American way and everything will be fine. It just doesn't happen that way. Not all countries can be easily reformed (Westernised). And it's not like most Iraqis did not live relatively well under Hussein (ignoring the sanctions for a moment).
These bastards in Okinawa and other areas that commit crimes against those they are assigned to protect should be punished to the fullest extent of that country's law when they are found to be guilty. What about bastards who drive over young girls in their Humvees? But I agree with your point about it being a deviation among the soldiers. The attitude (overall) of the command is in question, though.
Saudis should be next? Doesn't look like it from American relations with them. I wonder how the targets for "liberation" are selected... If it was according to the biggest need, it would mostly be done in Africa. But for some reason it looks very much like oil plays a role (even according to White House officials).
Overall the most interesting problem is the problem of perception. Why is it that Americans perceive themselves as liberators and people in other countries don't. I mean, the French government may be evil, German people might be stupid, Russian might have dealings with Saddam, but why people in practically all countries and most governments (excluding the UK and a bunch of miniscule states) oppose the war? What do they see differently? I sincerelly hope that things will go well in Iraq, but I suspect it might be not so much because of American intervention as despite it. Though I don't really know how to explain this to Americans...
Your linking two locations with very LOW population densities.
You're linking two continents with HUGE production and consumption volumes. Not to mention HUGE levels of trade between these two continents. Building a railroad there would be absolutely natural, the only problem are the conditions.
With all projects like this the major question is when to build them. It is obvious that in 500 years they will be very cheap and very low payback period. It is also obvious that 50 years ago that was not the case (expensive and long payback period). The million-dollar question is when it makes economic sense. Now, in 5 years, in 10 years, in 20 years? Sometimes people are overoptimistic and start such projects too soon, but often they start them at correct time.
I don't know when it will become economical to build a bridge over the Bering Strait. But with a modern railroad and a Bering Bridge it would be possible to ship goods from China to the US mainland at least 2-3 times faster than onboard a ship.
Interesting post, thanks. As for Hussein, as far as I am aware of, Americans have killed more (or at least a comparable number) of civilians in Iraq then Saddam did. Add to that the deaths due to sanctions for which the US is indirectly responsible.
As for comparison with Hitler, it is plainly wrong. Definitely Pol Pot was worse than Saddam. And Stalin was. And Kim Chong-il is. You want to know why I compare Saddam with Bush? Because they used to be friends and partners in crime. Why should not I compare them?
You say Saddam hangs people from light posts, I say that Saudis cut hands and beat people with stones. As for raping the children, please. Of course they would tell you that. A little brainwashing can improve morale a great deal. Doesn't mean that was true, though. And don't even get me started on GI's "sexual adventures" in the countries where you go.
President Bush has done more to destroy democracy than almost any other American president. By invading Iraq he did a lot to destroy international stability and the system of international law, that's what he did.
Dumbest comment? Get lost. Or rather check out Time's polls - they asked people all around the world which country they thought was most dangerous to the planet, most unpredictable, etc. And BBC had a great very in-depth program about how the world views America. For some reason, most people think that the US is a bigger threat to the world than Iraq. Doesn't that suggest that although Saddam is no angel, he is still better than Dubya?
Try to catch some of the recent Extreme Engineering series on Discovery Channel (or check out their website). Among other things they had parts about Bering Bridge, Transatlantic Bridge and Global Highway (same path as you describe). Cool stuff.
The truth is that to the best of our knowledge, sanctions worked. Iraq was not developing nukes. What makes you think that sanctions would not be so effective for other Arab states? What makes you think that the conquest of Iraq would have any significant effect other other countries? What makes you think that an Arab government would give a nuke to Bin Laden for him to drop it onto the US?
Personally I think that nuclear weapons currently owned by Russian and the USA (thousands of ICBMs active and ready to be launched at a minutes notice) are many times more dangerous than the potential of certain "rogue" states to develop single small and inefficient nukes. I suggest you read about Stanislav Petrov and the incident he helped to prevent. Then it might be worth it to rethink your priorities.
International terrorism (a loaded and incorrect term, but unfortunately, it was forced on us by Bush) is a minor risk. We all know extremely well that media overrepresents dangerous incidents. You can have murder rate decrease in your country 3 times, yet the coverage would increase 7 times! (that happened in the US in the past years) Same with terrorism. You are more likely to be killed by bees, eaten by a shark, striked by a lightning, etc., etc. then to be killed by a terrorist. Yet we pretend that this is somehow the biggest problem we have. Add to that the obvious dangers of mortality - we still haven't defeated cancer, cardio-vascular deseases, etc. - and you should realise that medical research is vastly more important then starting pointless wars.
But if you think R&D spendings lead to economic problems, well, I don't know what can be farther from the truth...:) How many unsuccessful large research programs have there been in the US? Too many to name here. R&D is a constant (more or less) percentage of the GDP and a large fraction of R&D spendings leads nowhere. This is not a surprise and should not cause economic problems (unless all R&D in the country is somehow wasted).
And unless they are complete morons, they won't think this happened because "bouncing" or whatever it is was removed from the US version. Certainly other factors are much more important.
Developers of BMX XXX (or how was it called) thought that this WAS the most important factor and where did it get them?
Sorry to break your theory, but China recently built a MagLev and they are at the same time one of the fastest growing and one of the largest economies in the world.
Saddam was not corrupt. He simply was a leader in a dictatorship, like Stalin or Mao. Saddam was a tyrant and he spent a lot of money on palaces for himself, but this does not mean corruption. Corruption is starting a $200bn war to provide a friendly corporation with a $10bn contract on which they can get $2bn of profit, from which they can pay $5mln in campaign contributions, from which Bush can steal $1mln. That's what I call corruption.
As for hunger for power, well, may be I exaggerated a bit too much, but then may be not. Yes, Saddam wanted power over his small country enough to decide not to run fair elections and remain dictator. But Bush wanted power over the most powerful country enough to cheat in elections. And now he wants the power over the whole world. Who is the warmongering power-hungry maniac now?
Either prepare the slides as illustrations to your self-contained energetic speech...
...or place most of the information in bulleted slides, so that you only need to read them and provide a few bits of extra info
A multimedia display is the best, but most people can neither make a good.ppt file, nor prepare a good speech, much less do both things and successfully integrate them.
I would absolutely love to see that. The Bush administration deserves to be taken down and I would prefer for this to happen in flames and with 100% certainty after Saddam's speech at the trial (or after Saddam commits "suicide" in the cell).
Saddam did a lot of evil things, but 1) at least he maintained a reasonably well-off, modern and secular state in such a complex region with the explosive mix of nationalities and tribes 2) he is not as corrupt and hungry for power as Bush and bushites (yeah, I know, not even Kim Chen Ir (sp?) is)
Sadly, with all the incompetence of the US government, chances for such an eye-opening trial are very low.:(
May be he has been, I don't know, because I became too tired of that war already and am not following the events too closely. If he is trying to do it, good for him, but it was pretty obvious from day one (in hindsight everything is) that going with UN was the correct approach, not attacking Iraq alone. And just to be clear, in no way do I imply that you didn't understand this, only that you decided not to touch this issue in your parent post.
Simple solution - send in the UN forces. This creates some problems, all right, and it's not easy to organise, but it has so many benefits (social, political, economical, diplomatic, etc.), I will not even try to list them all here.
You think they have, but the world recognised the right to self-determination. Separatism should be pefectly OK, the only problem is that elites don't want to lose power.
The are going to Valinor - a blessed realm where Elves live next to Valars (gods). Generally only Elves can go there (Gandalf can too, because he is a Maya - minor god), with some exceptions. I think Galadriel asked for Frodo (and Bilbo is supposed to go too!) because of everything he had to go through with the Ring. Sam got a life to live, he would be happier staying in this world. BTW, Gimli (with Legolas) go too. I don't know if all that was in the movie, if not, PJ sucks even more than I thought...
P.S. What actually happens on the Mount Doom? I've heard terrible stories abo0ut how PJ butchered the book... Please, shed some light.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it seems that Faramir returns to Denethor alive (saw some footage in the ROTK game), so supposedly he is not taken to the hospital...
For Tolkien's sake, if you are reviewing a movie on Slashdot, please, check the fucking spelling! Lest we will hear about dwarf Gimmler, hobbit Poppy and Agronome the King...
To be fair, I think our IP laws are in need of serious reform, but I do support the right of musicians and other people who produce creative works to receive compensation. I think your choice of words is far from perfect... Is there really such a thing as right to be compensated for producing creative works? How about right to be compensated for finding shitty bands and promoting them? And if such a right exist, does it trump the right to freely dessimenate information?
A better choice of words, I believe, would be to say that you think society should compensate artists for creative works in some form, not because artists have some right to the compensation, but because it is good for the society.
BS. Ask the average Kazaa downloader why they download music. Because it's there and it's easy! It has nothing to do with some sort of revolutionary movement. It's all about convenience, nothing more. Ask the average American why you wanted independence. Ask a Russian peasant why they wanted to overthrough Czarism, ask a French why they wanted to overthrough absolutism, ask English bourgois, why they didn't like the king... The answers would be money, taxes, right to own land, don't want to go to war, want freedom of enterpreneurship, etc.
SImple, banal and down-to-earth things, but you would be wrong claiming these weren't revolutionary movements. Same with KaZaA. An average person is a very pityful creature, but he can still be a part of a revolutionary social process - a transition to a copyrightless world.
No, it's you let see. First, landlines are obviously out of the question. Now about the wireless. 1Mbps is realistically the maximum you can reliably get in remote areas. But 1Mbps means you have to spend 20 minutes sending the data, which means stopping the tour for 20 minutes and sending the data - you don't want to lose you connection, etc. The point of the case, though, was that the tourists don't like to wait!
Thus the real benefits of pigeouns is near infinite last-mile bandwidth. Like with e-mail, you quickly send the message and disconnect. And you don't have to worry that the recipient will not see it until 20 minutes later.
new virus releasing day: second wednesday of the month. And sometimes the third Wednesday of the month - for those months when Wednesday was also the first day of the month...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't doubt your words about rape, only the interpretation. Did you see the evidence that Saddam himself permitted his men to rape a child? This is doubtful to me. And even if that is true, how Saddam is different from some Latvian (or was it Lithuanian) politicians who were IIRC arrested for child abuse? How is it different from France with their rumoured love for kids among the elite? How about Vatican, do you want the US to attack it? BTW, I do. As cynical as that may sound to you, isolated incidents do not mean much on a grand scheme of things. Several raped children do not make Saddam evil (even if he did it himself) as a country leader (as a person, may be).
As for me sitting behind the monitor, indeed, it is nice to be safe. This makes me somewhat less informed, but may be more objective.
Regarding the evidence, I thought there was plenty of evidence that the US supplied biological and nuclear materials for Saddam's weapon programs, that the US gave a green light to attack against Kurds and that all this was done to further American goals in the region, including oil and weakening of Islamic states.
9-11 might have not been done by Bush, but there are some hard facts, which are also hard to ignore. Hard fact 1 - there are a lot of shady aspects (fighters on the ground, Bush mentioning a TV broadcast, etc., etc.). Hard fact 2 - several investigations into 9-11 were hindered very much (by Bush administration).
I like my understanding of democracy, thank you very much. It's the Americans who have to constantly reassess their definitions, so that the US still conforms to it. To an outsider your system of legalised corruption (campaign contributions) looks horribly undemocratic. Not to mention the two-party system, where only 10% of the seats in Senate are competitive. The scale of election fraud can rival Uzbekistan and the prevalence of groupthink will soon put North Korea to shame. (exaggerating a bit)
Iraqis are not free to live in peace. I hope they will manage (with the help of American and international forces), but the reality is that different factions there are not accustomed to democratic process. This can lead to a situation similar to Afganistan (in the bad case). To an American it always looks very easy from the outside. Just come to a country, change everything the American way and everything will be fine. It just doesn't happen that way. Not all countries can be easily reformed (Westernised). And it's not like most Iraqis did not live relatively well under Hussein (ignoring the sanctions for a moment).
These bastards in Okinawa and other areas that commit crimes against those they are assigned to protect should be punished to the fullest extent of that country's law when they are found to be guilty.
What about bastards who drive over young girls in their Humvees? But I agree with your point about it being a deviation among the soldiers. The attitude (overall) of the command is in question, though.
Saudis should be next? Doesn't look like it from American relations with them. I wonder how the targets for "liberation" are selected... If it was according to the biggest need, it would mostly be done in Africa. But for some reason it looks very much like oil plays a role (even according to White House officials).
Overall the most interesting problem is the problem of perception. Why is it that Americans perceive themselves as liberators and people in other countries don't. I mean, the French government may be evil, German people might be stupid, Russian might have dealings with Saddam, but why people in practically all countries and most governments (excluding the UK and a bunch of miniscule states) oppose the war? What do they see differently?
I sincerelly hope that things will go well in Iraq, but I suspect it might be not so much because of American intervention as despite it. Though I don't really know how to explain this to Americans...
Your linking two locations with very LOW population densities.
You're linking two continents with HUGE production and consumption volumes. Not to mention HUGE levels of trade between these two continents. Building a railroad there would be absolutely natural, the only problem are the conditions.
With all projects like this the major question is when to build them. It is obvious that in 500 years they will be very cheap and very low payback period. It is also obvious that 50 years ago that was not the case (expensive and long payback period). The million-dollar question is when it makes economic sense. Now, in 5 years, in 10 years, in 20 years? Sometimes people are overoptimistic and start such projects too soon, but often they start them at correct time.
I don't know when it will become economical to build a bridge over the Bering Strait. But with a modern railroad and a Bering Bridge it would be possible to ship goods from China to the US mainland at least 2-3 times faster than onboard a ship.
Interesting post, thanks. As for Hussein, as far as I am aware of, Americans have killed more (or at least a comparable number) of civilians in Iraq then Saddam did. Add to that the deaths due to sanctions for which the US is indirectly responsible.
As for comparison with Hitler, it is plainly wrong. Definitely Pol Pot was worse than Saddam. And Stalin was. And Kim Chong-il is. You want to know why I compare Saddam with Bush? Because they used to be friends and partners in crime. Why should not I compare them?
You say Saddam hangs people from light posts, I say that Saudis cut hands and beat people with stones. As for raping the children, please. Of course they would tell you that. A little brainwashing can improve morale a great deal. Doesn't mean that was true, though. And don't even get me started on GI's "sexual adventures" in the countries where you go.
President Bush has done more to destroy democracy than almost any other American president. By invading Iraq he did a lot to destroy international stability and the system of international law, that's what he did.
Dumbest comment? Get lost.
Or rather check out Time's polls - they asked people all around the world which country they thought was most dangerous to the planet, most unpredictable, etc. And BBC had a great very in-depth program about how the world views America. For some reason, most people think that the US is a bigger threat to the world than Iraq. Doesn't that suggest that although Saddam is no angel, he is still better than Dubya?
Forgot to mention. In the past they also had one about a Bridge over Gibraltar.
Try to catch some of the recent Extreme Engineering series on Discovery Channel (or check out their website). Among other things they had parts about Bering Bridge, Transatlantic Bridge and Global Highway (same path as you describe). Cool stuff.
The truth is that to the best of our knowledge, sanctions worked. Iraq was not developing nukes. What makes you think that sanctions would not be so effective for other Arab states? What makes you think that the conquest of Iraq would have any significant effect other other countries? What makes you think that an Arab government would give a nuke to Bin Laden for him to drop it onto the US?
Personally I think that nuclear weapons currently owned by Russian and the USA (thousands of ICBMs active and ready to be launched at a minutes notice) are many times more dangerous than the potential of certain "rogue" states to develop single small and inefficient nukes. I suggest you read about Stanislav Petrov and the incident he helped to prevent. Then it might be worth it to rethink your priorities.
International terrorism (a loaded and incorrect term, but unfortunately, it was forced on us by Bush) is a minor risk. We all know extremely well that media overrepresents dangerous incidents. You can have murder rate decrease in your country 3 times, yet the coverage would increase 7 times! (that happened in the US in the past years) Same with terrorism. You are more likely to be killed by bees, eaten by a shark, striked by a lightning, etc., etc. then to be killed by a terrorist. Yet we pretend that this is somehow the biggest problem we have. Add to that the obvious dangers of mortality - we still haven't defeated cancer, cardio-vascular deseases, etc. - and you should realise that medical research is vastly more important then starting pointless wars.
But if you think R&D spendings lead to economic problems, well, I don't know what can be farther from the truth... :) How many unsuccessful large research programs have there been in the US? Too many to name here. R&D is a constant (more or less) percentage of the GDP and a large fraction of R&D spendings leads nowhere. This is not a surprise and should not cause economic problems (unless all R&D in the country is somehow wasted).
And unless they are complete morons, they won't think this happened because "bouncing" or whatever it is was removed from the US version. Certainly other factors are much more important.
Developers of BMX XXX (or how was it called) thought that this WAS the most important factor and where did it get them?
Sorry to break your theory, but China recently built a MagLev and they are at the same time one of the fastest growing and one of the largest economies in the world.
Thanks, but I know I am not.
Saddam was not corrupt. He simply was a leader in a dictatorship, like Stalin or Mao. Saddam was a tyrant and he spent a lot of money on palaces for himself, but this does not mean corruption. Corruption is starting a $200bn war to provide a friendly corporation with a $10bn contract on which they can get $2bn of profit, from which they can pay $5mln in campaign contributions, from which Bush can steal $1mln. That's what I call corruption.
As for hunger for power, well, may be I exaggerated a bit too much, but then may be not. Yes, Saddam wanted power over his small country enough to decide not to run fair elections and remain dictator. But Bush wanted power over the most powerful country enough to cheat in elections. And now he wants the power over the whole world. Who is the warmongering power-hungry maniac now?
- Know your strong sides
- You are a good speaker
- You are good with PowerPoint
- Use your powers
- Either prepare the slides as illustrations to your self-contained energetic speech...
- ...or place most of the information in bulleted slides, so that you only need to read them and provide a few bits of extra info
A multimedia display is the best, but most people can neither make a goodI would absolutely love to see that. The Bush administration deserves to be taken down and I would prefer for this to happen in flames and with 100% certainty after Saddam's speech at the trial (or after Saddam commits "suicide" in the cell).
:(
Saddam did a lot of evil things, but
1) at least he maintained a reasonably well-off, modern and secular state in such a complex region with the explosive mix of nationalities and tribes
2) he is not as corrupt and hungry for power as Bush and bushites (yeah, I know, not even Kim Chen Ir (sp?) is)
Sadly, with all the incompetence of the US government, chances for such an eye-opening trial are very low.
May be he has been, I don't know, because I became too tired of that war already and am not following the events too closely. If he is trying to do it, good for him, but it was pretty obvious from day one (in hindsight everything is) that going with UN was the correct approach, not attacking Iraq alone. And just to be clear, in no way do I imply that you didn't understand this, only that you decided not to touch this issue in your parent post.
Simple solution - send in the UN forces. This creates some problems, all right, and it's not easy to organise, but it has so many benefits (social, political, economical, diplomatic, etc.), I will not even try to list them all here.
You think they have, but the world recognised the right to self-determination. Separatism should be pefectly OK, the only problem is that elites don't want to lose power.
Good post. Two problems though.
1) Iraq has stopped their nuclear program long ago.
2) There was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden.
And here all this time I thought it was just me.
No, it seems there are two of you on Slashdot...
The are going to Valinor - a blessed realm where Elves live next to Valars (gods). Generally only Elves can go there (Gandalf can too, because he is a Maya - minor god), with some exceptions. I think Galadriel asked for Frodo (and Bilbo is supposed to go too!) because of everything he had to go through with the Ring. Sam got a life to live, he would be happier staying in this world. BTW, Gimli (with Legolas) go too. I don't know if all that was in the movie, if not, PJ sucks even more than I thought...
P.S. What actually happens on the Mount Doom? I've heard terrible stories abo0ut how PJ butchered the book... Please, shed some light.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it seems that Faramir returns to Denethor alive (saw some footage in the ROTK game), so supposedly he is not taken to the hospital...
For Tolkien's sake, if you are reviewing a movie on Slashdot, please, check the fucking spelling! Lest we will hear about dwarf Gimmler, hobbit Poppy and Agronome the King...
To be fair, I think our IP laws are in need of serious reform, but I do support the right of musicians and other people who produce creative works to receive compensation.
I think your choice of words is far from perfect... Is there really such a thing as right to be compensated for producing creative works? How about right to be compensated for finding shitty bands and promoting them? And if such a right exist, does it trump the right to freely dessimenate information?
A better choice of words, I believe, would be to say that you think society should compensate artists for creative works in some form, not because artists have some right to the compensation, but because it is good for the society.
BS. Ask the average Kazaa downloader why they download music. Because it's there and it's easy! It has nothing to do with some sort of revolutionary movement. It's all about convenience, nothing more.
Ask the average American why you wanted independence. Ask a Russian peasant why they wanted to overthrough Czarism, ask a French why they wanted to overthrough absolutism, ask English bourgois, why they didn't like the king... The answers would be money, taxes, right to own land, don't want to go to war, want freedom of enterpreneurship, etc.
SImple, banal and down-to-earth things, but you would be wrong claiming these weren't revolutionary movements. Same with KaZaA. An average person is a very pityful creature, but he can still be a part of a revolutionary social process - a transition to a copyrightless world.
No, it's you let see. First, landlines are obviously out of the question. Now about the wireless. 1Mbps is realistically the maximum you can reliably get in remote areas. But 1Mbps means you have to spend 20 minutes sending the data, which means stopping the tour for 20 minutes and sending the data - you don't want to lose you connection, etc. The point of the case, though, was that the tourists don't like to wait!
Thus the real benefits of pigeouns is near infinite last-mile bandwidth. Like with e-mail, you quickly send the message and disconnect. And you don't have to worry that the recipient will not see it until 20 minutes later.
new virus releasing day: second wednesday of the month.
And sometimes the third Wednesday of the month - for those months when Wednesday was also the first day of the month...