And I don't care who's around me, I could really give a fuck
It's 2009 on the Internet. Nobody here is bothered by the use of the word "fuck". But we object to your incorrect use of "could really give a fuck". It's "couldn't really give a fuck". Honestly. What is it with Americans and their blindspot for this phrase? How much sense does it make to say "I could care less" in a dismissive way? You're saying that you do care with this phrase when what you're trying to say is that you don't: i.e. that you couldn't care less. HTH:)
Ah, sorry. I was misled by MS's website which was only advertising three editions (Home, Professional and Ultimate). It seems there are other editions but these are not normally available at retail. Well, then at least it remains sensible for the customer even if someone on Slashdot (me) is talking rubbish.;)
It makes sense. They don't really lose anything as this is prior to you actually being able to buy it. Microsoft seem pretty confident that their new system is something to be proud of, so they get to show it off in the most ballsy way possible - by letting you actually have a copy and try it out for an entire year. The Vista criticism is now somewhat mitigated by people being able to get a copy of Windows 7 to install right now. Microsoft benefit from the "thousand eyes" testing principle of GNU/Linux. And when the time comes round that it is available to buy, you have an inducement in that its already installed and in use. There are also Advance Order deals available right now that let you buy it for half-price. Also, unlike the ridiculous number of different Vista versions there were, Windows 7 (ignoring server and mobile variants) comes in three flavours: Home, Professional and Ultimate which are easily differentiated by a short feature list of extras. Home Edition isn't the hamstrung version that it was with XP or Vista. It only lacks a couple of features that pros really would want, and Ultimate only adds things that really sound like the most exclusive features (e.g. the on and off-disk encryption utilities). So you aren't forced to buy some "deluxe" system just for basic features you'd expect.
I think Microsoft are being "generous" for very sound financial reasons. They reckon people will try this and actually want to buy it. I'm a Gentoo and Kubuntu user most of the time, but credit where its due.
The ease of accessibility is a big factor, but you've overlooked something else - the ease of production. Whereas someone wishing to produce a lecture formerly needed to book time with a camera or in a studio, they are now able to manage such a thing at home or in their office. And whilst recording quality is still a bit hit or miss with DIY production leading people to still turn to, for example, their university's AV department, the possibility of editing things at home, splicing in slides to the talk etc, is also a big advantage.
To prevent mass education these days, our governments are having to work overtime with media scandals and terrorist threats.
The simple problem is that very short videos are a terrible way to actually get opinions and feedback from the public for the following reasons:
Low ratio of information to time taken to receive it (in comparison to text, very much so)
Preceived validity of information affected by delivery / personal prejudices of the viewer
Limitation in who can feed back their opinions (don't have webcam convenient, disability limits verbal communication, discomfort in front of camera, etc.
Duration grossly limits quality and depth and amount of supporting evidence that can be fed back
Hard to parse, classify, collate or otherwise sort (in comparison to text)
Because these problems are so extremely apparent, they had to have been overlooked / discarded deliberately. Which makes this look like an exercise in PR and being trendy, rather than a genuine interest in the information people wish to provide.
One of the developers is dead, and this makes it rather impossible to negotiate a deal with this person.
Oh, that's a shame. Well, in that case, it's pretty much game over for Atari. I guess they'll never be released. Although you could presumably get a licence from his or her heirs in theory, it's not likely and from reading previous comments, this is past the point of purchasing a separate licence anyway.
Isn't a simple way out for Atari to purchase a non-GPL licence from the ScummVM developers. I don't know how many there are and whether you'd need to replace some minor parts of the code base where a developer couldn't be contacted / didn't respond, but maybe Atari could just say "We fucked up. You know what legal systems are like! If we donated $ to EFF (or other cause popular amongst the developers), can we get a licence for the code for use in games X and Y, please?"
The developers are probably pretty reasonable people.
Could Atari not avoid this whole mess by negotiating a separate non-GPL licence with the developers of scumVM. I don't know how many contributors to the code base there have been but there are normally a smallish number of main developers. It might not be feasible to make a paying contract with all the people, but these people are usually pretty reasonable. If Atari were to offer to make a contribution to a FOSS cause such as the EFF in exchange for a one time non-GPL licence for the games they've already done, then probably the developers would sign something to help Atari out. After all, most OS developers quite like to see their work being used all other issues aside. If there are any odd contributors of the odd line here or there that can't be traced / don't respond, then small parts of the code base can be coded around quite easily perhaps.
There's a lot of weird assumptions in your post. That there is a category that is called a "geek" and that people who belong to it don't by default attend to their appearance or have fit bodies or "act normal". If geek means merely this then fine - it can be a usable definition. But the assumption is that geek also means... what? Knowledge of computers? Science? Male? Actually studies? A tendency to watch Dr. Who? And that these are at odds with any of the former. It's rubbish. People who are better educated tend to be healthier and dress better (for some definitions of better) anyway. Half the people in the UK seem to watch Dr. Who and loads of my friends (female, not working in IT) have been to see the Star Trek movie and enjoyed it (I haven't - Star Trek bores the crap out of me). "Geek" is a meaningless term worn as a badge of pride by a certain sub-culture within the hopelessly clique-ridden US high-school system.
How does a "geek" meet girls? Stop defining yourself by some insult used in high school and thinking it requires any particular look, behaviour or social habits. Just go out and meet someone. And if that doesn't work out, pick yourself back up and meet someone else.
I think all the OP needs to realise is that he's not special. Everyone goes through the same thing - having to go out, sometimes getting rejected. Maybe the OP would be happier if everyone had to wear badges that listed how many times she already had a boyfriend, or signs on their backs saying "I didn't really want to go out tonight, but was feeling kind of lonely" or carrying a photo of a male model introducing themselves by saying "Sorry, I don't look like this." There's nothing special about the OP that I know of. He needs to try. Maybe there are suggestions in this thread that will help him. But at the end of the day, none of it will work until he tries to live life the same way everyone else does. Not by giving up any interests or things he likes about himself, but just by accepting the challenges he faces are merely the same ones many others face. Fat, thin, tall, short, smart, whatever. Take what you've been given and make the most of it.
Amen. First step is for the poor guy to stop calling himself a geek and seeing it as some sort of badge of identity. Treat people as people and why on Earth does he think he has to find someone who labels themselves according to some stereotype. Sharing some interests is fine. But the main things is you get on and fill the roles in each others lives that you both want to. You meet girls the same way anyone else on the planet does. You go out, you try to be fun and you mix with people until you find someone you like and who likes you. There is no special rule for people who... well, whatever the definition of "geek" is because I certainly don't know what the definition is
I feel the same way about CPUs. We're always seeing comparisons of the latest rivals. But personally, just sometimes, I'd like to comparisons of new versions versus old versions - whether that is latest releases of browsers or the Phenom IIs vs. old Athlon dual cores. I want to see progress because without that context it's hard to judge actual value. If we see that Firefox 3.5 is better than IE8, that's good to know. But what if they're both vastly superior to Firefox 3.0. Or that there really isn't much difference.
Yep. It's even easier to dehumanize your enemy when they exist only on a computer screen. And dehumanizing your enemy is what it's all about. They're not "people", they're "terrorists" or whatever word you've conditioned people to use as a substitute for thought. The article says around 650 people have been assassinated in Pakistan by US forces so far. No trials, no declaration of warfare, not even a tactical need to seize a position. Just US drones flying into another country and shooting people who are inconvenient. Disgusting.
Right - because someone who reads a site on tech news because they're interested in tech has to also play Dungeons and Dragons? Are the two groups synonymous? If I see a group of people rolling dice can I go over and ask them to design the schema for my database?
Good and plausible logic, but not necessarily the case here. With a 30% mark-up, they can use the money from selling the gold to buy more gold. If they wished, then the more gold they sold, the more they'd end up with (subject to not hitting the finite limits of the world's gold reserves). And more than this, the value of their gold might have gone up because it's in demand (subject to them increasing the selling price of their own gold over time to maintain parity).
Well the principle of your argument extends to all taxes and any form of socialised health care, education, water and sewage services, etc. If you opposed to the principle with such things as these, then fine as far as consistency of your argument goes (though I disagree), but if you're not against such things, then you're simply making an exception in the case of networking infrastructure. I personally am fine with a bit of socialism in society's basic needs as I can see the very positive effects it has in practice. And I am fine with extending that principle to networking infrastructure. We do it with roads, after all, and the Internet has become nearly as important to our commerce as physical transport is.
That's my rationale and answer to your question, anyway.
Actually, an Iranian friend of a friend who lives in the USA remarked when Bush won (the first time) that if this had happened in Iran, there would be riots in the streets and she asked why no-one was rioting in the USA over the Florida debacle. My US friend replied that everyone was too busy paying off mortgages.
If you could mod up comments in real life, that would have got a +5 Insightful in no time.:(
Congrats.. you are my first foe, because to are a blathering idiot.. This whole situation has nothing to do with non-Iranian politics.. it is a 3 way fight between the conservative clerics (Khamenei), the conservative seculars (Ahmadinejad), and the young secular movement who wants actual democracy and who views Mousavi as the figurehead to that end. Nobody has a clue how it's going to turn out or who has the stronger stomach, but this is an extremely serious situation... and neither the US nor Europe has any sway at the moment
Why do you want to make me your foe? The situation does have a lot to do with non-Iranian politics. One of the things that Mousavi campaigned on was closer ties with the USA and engagement with Barak Obama. This was explicitly stated as his position as part of his campaigning. A different relationship with the West is one of the things he has been selling himself to the wealthier Iranians on because a lot of them identify with the Western lifestyle and wealth. And it's very naive to think that Mousavi hasn't had some discussions with US representatives in case he won. Non-Iranian politics is a very important factor in all of this.
I hope you'll reconsider whether you want to avoid dialogue with me in the future (presuming that foes are modded down in your filters as is default).
There's no excuse for opening fire on protestors whether they are backed by foreign powers or not. But in answer to your question of whether I believe the West is behind the protests, the answer is a detailed 'no.' That wasn't the thrust of what I was saying. I was just illustrating how extremely the West would like to see Mousavi in power, motivations for casting doubt on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule and reasons why he is popular.
With regard to Western involvement in the protests, I was simply cautioning the GP not to dismiss such as conspiracy theories rather than saying there was such involvement this time. There are a number of proven examples of Western interference in Iran's political processes (let alone other Middle Eastern countries). The most notable of which is US and UK's very active involvement in a coup there in 1953 that deposed the democratically elected ruler in favour of a brutal dictator who would support their strategic and oil interests. A dictatorship that lasted 26 years incidentally with US support.
In this instance I have seen no evidence of outside involvement in organising the protests. However, it's extremely naive to think that Mousavi and his allies haven't had ongoing contact with Western powers. He is a former Prime Minister of Iran - of course he has contacts and diplomatic ties abroad and will have discussed intentions should he have won the election. Iran's relationship to the USA is one of the platforms on which he campaigned. So active involvement in this instance - not that I'm aware of. My worry is that seeing the sudden media war on the legitimacy of the election (and the Western media did as they were told back in 1953, too), is that the ground may be being prepared for active involvement now and that is what we're seeing.
So again, I never said that the West was behind the protests. As far as I can tell. the West's role so far is merely that of wealthy bridegroom that Mousavi and his followers hope to court. But it is wrong to dismiss claims of outside involvement just because it couldn't happen. And it is wrong at this point to, as the GP did, state baldly that the election was stolen because there is little reason to suppose that, the people saying so have a strong reason to want it to be so and there is good reason based on Ahmadinejad's popularity to think the results are legitimate.
I hope that clears up what I was saying and that we now see eye to eye again.
The greatest trick the Israeli government ever pulled was to convince the world that to be Jewish is to support Israel and that to criticise Israel is to be anti-semitic. There are plenty of jews who either object to the Israeli government's behaviour or simply don't care about it. People are not their ethnicity and nobody gets to speak on your behalf because you share some ancestory with them.
Hey, I can afford 50p a month and if it actually goes toward dragging our country into the 21st Century, then I'm fine with it. I don't care if I have to subsidize a few people out in the countryside. The more people that have a decent connection, the better for UK businesses that rely on it. It also inches us toward telecommuting being viable which (a) reduces congestion in and out of the cities, (b) reduces the environmental impact on all of us and (c) lowers housing costs in built up areas.
But mainly it's just that it's 50p a month. If the government came round all our doors and asked for £6.00 to improve our country's broadband infrastructure, I'd happily stick it in the tin so long as I knew the money wasn't disappearing into BT's (or any other one company's) bank account.
Ignoring the post you replied to, are you sure that the election was "stolen". On the whole, the West would really, really have liked Mousavi to have won. They would really, really have liked his defeat to be the result of fraud. But truthfully, Ahmadinejad is very popular with the common Iranian. He provided insurance for millions of women who work at home. He has carried out a lot of things that have benefited the common Iranian. And when Iranians see the US invading neighbouring countries, threatening their own country both verbally in diplomatic channels and through sending armed forces scouting through their waters, someone who is perceived as standing up to the US is, rightly or wrongly, well thought of for that.
Mousavi is popular mainly with better off Iranians who believe they stand to benefit more from taking a more pacifying approach to the US (some would say submissive). It was, it now seems, wishful thinking that he would win and it seems that many commentators are now levelling the accusation of fraud because that suits the purposes of much of the West. But we see that the supporters of Mousavi taking to the streets aren't receiving popular support (and more blatantly, this is taking place only in the capital - the rest of the country seems content with the result which is also supports the election results) and in fact these supporters in many cases have initiated the violence. (The Independent paper in the UK gave a full page interview to one of Mousavi's supporters who, when you managed to overlook the bias, was praising her fellows for managing to have set a bus on fire and pretty much said that it didn't matter whether Ahmadinejad got more votes because he shouldn't be President and Mousavi should).
The behaviour of the Iranian police has been brutal (predictably) and Ahmadinejad remains horrible on certain human rights issues. But as far as I can see, it looks like he won (and earlier Western reports grudgingly admitted this before they realised they could get away with overt suggestions of fraud). And so it is essentially Mousavi's supporters who are a smaller faction trying to undermine democracy with violence. If they get anywhere (and whatever you think of the GP, covert Western support or promises of support for his followers is extremely plausible), then it would just push Iran back to a more totalitarian state because they certainly wont win whatever the West would like to pretend. They don't have the support of the common people and, quite frankly, they appear to have lost the election.
Mousavi - good or bad (and he's no angel, just more amenable to Western interests), you can't just allow democracy when it elects the people you want elected.
Then I hope my antiquated French put you in a good mood because there never seems to be a shortage of people out there determined to go straight to the last resort.;)
Well I did say a culling or two. Besides I'd like a pandemic that took out about 90%.
So essentially a collapse of civilisation as we know it, then? Internet, agriculture, trade, healthcare, militaries - the works. I presume then, that you think you're positioned to cope with such a scenario. And I presume you think you'd be able to carry on with whatever productive activities you are currently doing whilst being part of a local organized militia, farming for food and dealing with a major urban to pastoral migration of the remaining population? I can't comment on whether or not you'd survive, but I can be fairly sure that both you and the rest of the species would be pretty busy for quite some generations just rebuilding society to actually do anything useful on a species wide-scale. Do you have any idea what such an event would do to our research and advancement of technology?
While you may be right with regard to the bounce back effect, if that were to occur after the kind of tragedy I suggest, we would all be cross-eyed and buck-toothed bumpkins within two generations
I don't see why. You're going to need to explain that. I'm guessing that you think it would be the result of breeding in a reduced gene pool? That's incorrect unless for some reason the survivors were all very closely related to each other.
Re: Your sig:
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
What's the point of using a French quote on an English website?
There are sigs around here that make less sense that are in English. Some people will understand it, some people will ignore it and some people will bother to look it up. I like it. It's fine.
Slashdot Mirror
It's 2009 on the Internet. Nobody here is bothered by the use of the word "fuck". But we object to your incorrect use of "could really give a fuck". It's "couldn't really give a fuck". Honestly. What is it with Americans and their blindspot for this phrase? How much sense does it make to say "I could care less" in a dismissive way? You're saying that you do care with this phrase when what you're trying to say is that you don't: i.e. that you couldn't care less. HTH :)
Ah, sorry. I was misled by MS's website which was only advertising three editions (Home, Professional and Ultimate). It seems there are other editions but these are not normally available at retail. Well, then at least it remains sensible for the customer even if someone on Slashdot (me) is talking rubbish. ;)
Thanks for the correction,
H.
It makes sense. They don't really lose anything as this is prior to you actually being able to buy it. Microsoft seem pretty confident that their new system is something to be proud of, so they get to show it off in the most ballsy way possible - by letting you actually have a copy and try it out for an entire year. The Vista criticism is now somewhat mitigated by people being able to get a copy of Windows 7 to install right now. Microsoft benefit from the "thousand eyes" testing principle of GNU/Linux. And when the time comes round that it is available to buy, you have an inducement in that its already installed and in use. There are also Advance Order deals available right now that let you buy it for half-price. Also, unlike the ridiculous number of different Vista versions there were, Windows 7 (ignoring server and mobile variants) comes in three flavours: Home, Professional and Ultimate which are easily differentiated by a short feature list of extras. Home Edition isn't the hamstrung version that it was with XP or Vista. It only lacks a couple of features that pros really would want, and Ultimate only adds things that really sound like the most exclusive features (e.g. the on and off-disk encryption utilities). So you aren't forced to buy some "deluxe" system just for basic features you'd expect.
I think Microsoft are being "generous" for very sound financial reasons. They reckon people will try this and actually want to buy it. I'm a Gentoo and Kubuntu user most of the time, but credit where its due.
The ease of accessibility is a big factor, but you've overlooked something else - the ease of production. Whereas someone wishing to produce a lecture formerly needed to book time with a camera or in a studio, they are now able to manage such a thing at home or in their office. And whilst recording quality is still a bit hit or miss with DIY production leading people to still turn to, for example, their university's AV department, the possibility of editing things at home, splicing in slides to the talk etc, is also a big advantage.
To prevent mass education these days, our governments are having to work overtime with media scandals and terrorist threats.
The simple problem is that very short videos are a terrible way to actually get opinions and feedback from the public for the following reasons:
Because these problems are so extremely apparent, they had to have been overlooked / discarded deliberately. Which makes this look like an exercise in PR and being trendy, rather than a genuine interest in the information people wish to provide.
Oh, that's a shame. Well, in that case, it's pretty much game over for Atari. I guess they'll never be released. Although you could presumably get a licence from his or her heirs in theory, it's not likely and from reading previous comments, this is past the point of purchasing a separate licence anyway.
Isn't a simple way out for Atari to purchase a non-GPL licence from the ScummVM developers. I don't know how many there are and whether you'd need to replace some minor parts of the code base where a developer couldn't be contacted / didn't respond, but maybe Atari could just say "We fucked up. You know what legal systems are like! If we donated $ to EFF (or other cause popular amongst the developers), can we get a licence for the code for use in games X and Y, please?"
The developers are probably pretty reasonable people.
Could Atari not avoid this whole mess by negotiating a separate non-GPL licence with the developers of scumVM. I don't know how many contributors to the code base there have been but there are normally a smallish number of main developers. It might not be feasible to make a paying contract with all the people, but these people are usually pretty reasonable. If Atari were to offer to make a contribution to a FOSS cause such as the EFF in exchange for a one time non-GPL licence for the games they've already done, then probably the developers would sign something to help Atari out. After all, most OS developers quite like to see their work being used all other issues aside. If there are any odd contributors of the odd line here or there that can't be traced / don't respond, then small parts of the code base can be coded around quite easily perhaps.
It seems the obvious solution, anyway.
There's a lot of weird assumptions in your post. That there is a category that is called a "geek" and that people who belong to it don't by default attend to their appearance or have fit bodies or "act normal". If geek means merely this then fine - it can be a usable definition. But the assumption is that geek also means... what? Knowledge of computers? Science? Male? Actually studies? A tendency to watch Dr. Who? And that these are at odds with any of the former. It's rubbish. People who are better educated tend to be healthier and dress better (for some definitions of better) anyway. Half the people in the UK seem to watch Dr. Who and loads of my friends (female, not working in IT) have been to see the Star Trek movie and enjoyed it (I haven't - Star Trek bores the crap out of me). "Geek" is a meaningless term worn as a badge of pride by a certain sub-culture within the hopelessly clique-ridden US high-school system.
How does a "geek" meet girls? Stop defining yourself by some insult used in high school and thinking it requires any particular look, behaviour or social habits. Just go out and meet someone. And if that doesn't work out, pick yourself back up and meet someone else.
I think all the OP needs to realise is that he's not special. Everyone goes through the same thing - having to go out, sometimes getting rejected. Maybe the OP would be happier if everyone had to wear badges that listed how many times she already had a boyfriend, or signs on their backs saying "I didn't really want to go out tonight, but was feeling kind of lonely" or carrying a photo of a male model introducing themselves by saying "Sorry, I don't look like this." There's nothing special about the OP that I know of. He needs to try. Maybe there are suggestions in this thread that will help him. But at the end of the day, none of it will work until he tries to live life the same way everyone else does. Not by giving up any interests or things he likes about himself, but just by accepting the challenges he faces are merely the same ones many others face. Fat, thin, tall, short, smart, whatever. Take what you've been given and make the most of it.
Amen. First step is for the poor guy to stop calling himself a geek and seeing it as some sort of badge of identity. Treat people as people and why on Earth does he think he has to find someone who labels themselves according to some stereotype. Sharing some interests is fine. But the main things is you get on and fill the roles in each others lives that you both want to. You meet girls the same way anyone else on the planet does. You go out, you try to be fun and you mix with people until you find someone you like and who likes you. There is no special rule for people who... well, whatever the definition of "geek" is because I certainly don't know what the definition is
I feel the same way about CPUs. We're always seeing comparisons of the latest rivals. But personally, just sometimes, I'd like to comparisons of new versions versus old versions - whether that is latest releases of browsers or the Phenom IIs vs. old Athlon dual cores. I want to see progress because without that context it's hard to judge actual value. If we see that Firefox 3.5 is better than IE8, that's good to know. But what if they're both vastly superior to Firefox 3.0. Or that there really isn't much difference.
*goes to look up what Vimperator is*
Oh. Wow. THANK YOU! Vim compatible, mouseless browsing. That. Is. Great! It might even prise me off Konqueror! (Which has its own mouseless browsing)
Cheers,
H.
Yep. It's even easier to dehumanize your enemy when they exist only on a computer screen. And dehumanizing your enemy is what it's all about. They're not "people", they're "terrorists" or whatever word you've conditioned people to use as a substitute for thought. The article says around 650 people have been assassinated in Pakistan by US forces so far. No trials, no declaration of warfare, not even a tactical need to seize a position. Just US drones flying into another country and shooting people who are inconvenient. Disgusting.
Right - because someone who reads a site on tech news because they're interested in tech has to also play Dungeons and Dragons? Are the two groups synonymous? If I see a group of people rolling dice can I go over and ask them to design the schema for my database?
Good and plausible logic, but not necessarily the case here. With a 30% mark-up, they can use the money from selling the gold to buy more gold. If they wished, then the more gold they sold, the more they'd end up with (subject to not hitting the finite limits of the world's gold reserves). And more than this, the value of their gold might have gone up because it's in demand (subject to them increasing the selling price of their own gold over time to maintain parity).
Well the principle of your argument extends to all taxes and any form of socialised health care, education, water and sewage services, etc. If you opposed to the principle with such things as these, then fine as far as consistency of your argument goes (though I disagree), but if you're not against such things, then you're simply making an exception in the case of networking infrastructure. I personally am fine with a bit of socialism in society's basic needs as I can see the very positive effects it has in practice. And I am fine with extending that principle to networking infrastructure. We do it with roads, after all, and the Internet has become nearly as important to our commerce as physical transport is.
That's my rationale and answer to your question, anyway.
Actually, an Iranian friend of a friend who lives in the USA remarked when Bush won (the first time) that if this had happened in Iran, there would be riots in the streets and she asked why no-one was rioting in the USA over the Florida debacle. My US friend replied that everyone was too busy paying off mortgages.
If you could mod up comments in real life, that would have got a +5 Insightful in no time.
Why do you want to make me your foe? The situation does have a lot to do with non-Iranian politics. One of the things that Mousavi campaigned on was closer ties with the USA and engagement with Barak Obama. This was explicitly stated as his position as part of his campaigning. A different relationship with the West is one of the things he has been selling himself to the wealthier Iranians on because a lot of them identify with the Western lifestyle and wealth. And it's very naive to think that Mousavi hasn't had some discussions with US representatives in case he won. Non-Iranian politics is a very important factor in all of this.
I hope you'll reconsider whether you want to avoid dialogue with me in the future (presuming that foes are modded down in your filters as is default).
Regards,
H.
There's no excuse for opening fire on protestors whether they are backed by foreign powers or not. But in answer to your question of whether I believe the West is behind the protests, the answer is a detailed 'no.' That wasn't the thrust of what I was saying. I was just illustrating how extremely the West would like to see Mousavi in power, motivations for casting doubt on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule and reasons why he is popular.
With regard to Western involvement in the protests, I was simply cautioning the GP not to dismiss such as conspiracy theories rather than saying there was such involvement this time. There are a number of proven examples of Western interference in Iran's political processes (let alone other Middle Eastern countries). The most notable of which is US and UK's very active involvement in a coup there in 1953 that deposed the democratically elected ruler in favour of a brutal dictator who would support their strategic and oil interests. A dictatorship that lasted 26 years incidentally with US support.
In this instance I have seen no evidence of outside involvement in organising the protests. However, it's extremely naive to think that Mousavi and his allies haven't had ongoing contact with Western powers. He is a former Prime Minister of Iran - of course he has contacts and diplomatic ties abroad and will have discussed intentions should he have won the election. Iran's relationship to the USA is one of the platforms on which he campaigned. So active involvement in this instance - not that I'm aware of. My worry is that seeing the sudden media war on the legitimacy of the election (and the Western media did as they were told back in 1953, too), is that the ground may be being prepared for active involvement now and that is what we're seeing.
So again, I never said that the West was behind the protests. As far as I can tell. the West's role so far is merely that of wealthy bridegroom that Mousavi and his followers hope to court. But it is wrong to dismiss claims of outside involvement just because it couldn't happen. And it is wrong at this point to, as the GP did, state baldly that the election was stolen because there is little reason to suppose that, the people saying so have a strong reason to want it to be so and there is good reason based on Ahmadinejad's popularity to think the results are legitimate.
I hope that clears up what I was saying and that we now see eye to eye again.
Regards,
H.
The greatest trick the Israeli government ever pulled was to convince the world that to be Jewish is to support Israel and that to criticise Israel is to be anti-semitic. There are plenty of jews who either object to the Israeli government's behaviour or simply don't care about it. People are not their ethnicity and nobody gets to speak on your behalf because you share some ancestory with them.
Hey, I can afford 50p a month and if it actually goes toward dragging our country into the 21st Century, then I'm fine with it. I don't care if I have to subsidize a few people out in the countryside. The more people that have a decent connection, the better for UK businesses that rely on it. It also inches us toward telecommuting being viable which (a) reduces congestion in and out of the cities, (b) reduces the environmental impact on all of us and (c) lowers housing costs in built up areas.
But mainly it's just that it's 50p a month. If the government came round all our doors and asked for £6.00 to improve our country's broadband infrastructure, I'd happily stick it in the tin so long as I knew the money wasn't disappearing into BT's (or any other one company's) bank account.
Ignoring the post you replied to, are you sure that the election was "stolen". On the whole, the West would really, really have liked Mousavi to have won. They would really, really have liked his defeat to be the result of fraud. But truthfully, Ahmadinejad is very popular with the common Iranian. He provided insurance for millions of women who work at home. He has carried out a lot of things that have benefited the common Iranian. And when Iranians see the US invading neighbouring countries, threatening their own country both verbally in diplomatic channels and through sending armed forces scouting through their waters, someone who is perceived as standing up to the US is, rightly or wrongly, well thought of for that.
Mousavi is popular mainly with better off Iranians who believe they stand to benefit more from taking a more pacifying approach to the US (some would say submissive). It was, it now seems, wishful thinking that he would win and it seems that many commentators are now levelling the accusation of fraud because that suits the purposes of much of the West. But we see that the supporters of Mousavi taking to the streets aren't receiving popular support (and more blatantly, this is taking place only in the capital - the rest of the country seems content with the result which is also supports the election results) and in fact these supporters in many cases have initiated the violence. (The Independent paper in the UK gave a full page interview to one of Mousavi's supporters who, when you managed to overlook the bias, was praising her fellows for managing to have set a bus on fire and pretty much said that it didn't matter whether Ahmadinejad got more votes because he shouldn't be President and Mousavi should).
The behaviour of the Iranian police has been brutal (predictably) and Ahmadinejad remains horrible on certain human rights issues. But as far as I can see, it looks like he won (and earlier Western reports grudgingly admitted this before they realised they could get away with overt suggestions of fraud). And so it is essentially Mousavi's supporters who are a smaller faction trying to undermine democracy with violence. If they get anywhere (and whatever you think of the GP, covert Western support or promises of support for his followers is extremely plausible), then it would just push Iran back to a more totalitarian state because they certainly wont win whatever the West would like to pretend. They don't have the support of the common people and, quite frankly, they appear to have lost the election.
Mousavi - good or bad (and he's no angel, just more amenable to Western interests), you can't just allow democracy when it elects the people you want elected.
Then I hope my antiquated French put you in a good mood because there never seems to be a shortage of people out there determined to go straight to the last resort.
Regards,
H.
(Nice Moon photos, btw).
So essentially a collapse of civilisation as we know it, then? Internet, agriculture, trade, healthcare, militaries - the works. I presume then, that you think you're positioned to cope with such a scenario. And I presume you think you'd be able to carry on with whatever productive activities you are currently doing whilst being part of a local organized militia, farming for food and dealing with a major urban to pastoral migration of the remaining population? I can't comment on whether or not you'd survive, but I can be fairly sure that both you and the rest of the species would be pretty busy for quite some generations just rebuilding society to actually do anything useful on a species wide-scale. Do you have any idea what such an event would do to our research and advancement of technology?
I don't see why. You're going to need to explain that. I'm guessing that you think it would be the result of breeding in a reduced gene pool? That's incorrect unless for some reason the survivors were all very closely related to each other.
There are sigs around here that make less sense that are in English. Some people will understand it, some people will ignore it and some people will bother to look it up. I like it. It's fine.
H.