There are likely 25+ economic theories about this and probably twice that many psychological studies (both experimental and non-experimental) on such things. If you really want to know then just look for them, starting in either a psychology or economics books to find initial references.
There is a difference between say taking a 25% pay cut and a 75% pay cut, the difference may be between keeping your family comfortable and barely keeping them clothed + fed. People are willing to make sacrifices since the job is nurturing the next generation and all but very few people are saints. It's like someone bitching about non-profit CEOs making 300k while forgetting that they've essentially have taken a 90% pay cut compared to working for a for-profit company, there is only so much you can expect people to sacrifice and still have any reasonable candidates left.
You have to remember that public schools are not the only option for a teacher, private schools will likely pay much more for much easier work for a good teacher. So its not even competition with other professions but competition with other schools that is there.
Now there are imho bigger problems than money as to why I'd never be a teacher: bureaucracy, idiots, lawsuits, spoiled students, spoiled parents, spoiled female students who accuse me of sexual harassment if I give them a bad grade and so on. I've had to deal with idiotic school administrators at good schools for half a decade as a student and unless I'm doing it for my own family I do not want to ever deal with that again (it got to the point where an assistant principal literally had to yell at the school administrators on my behalf because they were such morons).
In my old High School there used to be a great math teacher but the city refused to pay him what he deserved (didn't honor his degree from Romania) so after many years he had no choice (he had to support his family) but to leave for a private school outside the city (teaching an easier subject at probably three times the salary). The assistant principal of math, another great guy, also left for a private school or something at likewise three times the salary. That was probably more due to bureaucracy and bad feeling I'd say than anything else but that's a different point (you can deal with a lot but at some point its just not worth it given just how much more you can make at another school).
And the google study posted a while back disagrees with that, as do a ton of other sources I'd assume. That does not say good things about the accuracy of this study.
I do not consider MySQL to be free enough, for example, becuase they use the GPL licensing of client libs to try to force people to pay them money for more rights.
So? They allow more options for people who want them, yet a company that only has a GPL license and thus limits options is more free?
In short, I don't think that the license is the only consideration when deciding whether software is truly Free. The intentions and actions of those at the center of the community need to be considered as well.
Why? You can fork the project and make a new community if the current developers(s) aren't playing along and you can use their code in your own project. The developer could reply "fuck you bitch" to every email and contribution attempt but if they have the proper license it's still free software.
You are also missing the point that the community isn't the people working on a single project but all projects with compatible licenses, you can use code freely between projects or analyze other code for methods of doing things. Hell, I'd venture to say that is the whole point of free software not the creation of many discrete independent communities (which imho is rather counterproductive especially if incompatible licenses force such divisions and the projects in question address simialr problems).
Not really, if you're the solve developer (or copyright owner) you can release things with any license or combination of them. It's somewhat popular to have a GPL version that can't be easily used in commercial products but also have a version that companies can pay for to bypass that restriction (but have other restrictions as a result). As long as contributors assign you copyright or license their additions under all the licenses you're using then you can even "sell" their code. If you're releasing just binaries it doesn't much matter what license you're using as you can simply assign any one you want when releasing the source (you own the copyright after all).
In your example, with a BSD license once you release the source code its open for any one else to add to their commercial products. With GPL they'd have to pay you assuming you have such a system in place even if you release the source.
It's unlikely that they knew the volume but this being a rocket the mass was measurable. While you can calculate the volume from the mass, due to the rain not being perfectly pure and the temperature not being 4C the volume will not be exactly 540 liters even if the mass is exactly 540 kg (at room temp it'd be ~537 by my calculations).
Wait, you're talking about the US hedging its bet while the whole WW2 was due to Europe desperatly trying to avoid was by giving into Hitler's every demand? I mean are you complaining about the US or human nature?
Oh, there are reasons. They are collectively called Imperialism. In the end that's why the US did get involved. Take the occupation of Iraq for a current example. Huh? wtf are you smoking, the US gained maybe 2 pieces of land after WW2 that weren't returned or made self-governing within a decade. Saying we entered for imperialism is likely the stupidest explanation I've heard, self preservation and self-righteous leaders (the US embargoed Japan and led to Pearl Harbor, war could have been avoided). Have you even seen the cost of WW2 in terms both the short and long term in people and money, a good portion of our national deficit right now is due to WW2.
Exactly. It wasn't a secret to the ruling class, but they hadn't as yet decided which side to join, so Hitler's atrocities were being kept out of the mainstream media, to leave the US' options open. I doubt it, the "ruling class" also honestly taught Stalin wasn't such a bad guy and before the war Hitler had hidden what he was doing very well.
Sure. But they did exactly the same for Hitler. The US has a long history of providing weapons and other support to both sides in a conflict.
Well then please provide the references, asfaik the US almost exclusively aided the allies by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease Providing aid to the axis would have been impractical likely due to the lack of shipping lanes that didn't go through ally territory.
You need to reconsider this stance. Propaganda is at an all-time high in the US. It's a different kind to the old-world style. It's a lot more subtle, and yet more powerful at the same time. Read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for a detailed analysis of the use of propaganda and one-sidedness western societies. It's very interesting. Like I said, I disagree that its anywhere close to what the soviets did or that its all that much worse than what the US did during the cold war.
I see. That's the problem then. People like you are willing to compromise their position and support people who they 'claim' to be 'bad people' simply because they need help from these bad people, and then when things are going better, they think they can turn around and show their true colours. It doesn't work like that. Sure, it's done all the time, and yes I understand exactly why. All I'm saying is that it's not a defensible position, and that I despise people - and countries - who act like this. In the real world those who don't compromise, lie and backstab their way are usually found dead in a gutter when someone who does gets annoyed at them. There is no such thing as a "good" nation or, with rare exceptions, a "good person" so in the end it's all about choosing the lesser of many evils.
And sure Hitler was bad. But don't try to argue that that's the reason why the US decided to enter the war or fight against Germany.
Likely it was, having Hitler control all of Europe did not appeal to US leaders although the people didn't seem to mind.
The only difference is that dead Americans create political problems at home, so should be avoided if possible. So why did the US enter WW2 at all, Pearl Harbor could have been easily avoided had the US not embargoed Japan (which the US knew would force Japan's hand). Likewise the result was millions of dead Americans so your logic appears to be fault.
Oh, the "We didn't know" defense. It's OK for civilians to throw this one out occasionally, but not the ruling class. They knew. They spent a LOT of money making sure they knew. Well then please provide a reference that says so and WW2 propaganda that notes Hitler's atrocities.
Lol, go read exactly how "easy" the F-117A was to detect or shoot down, keep in mind that they were shooting at essentially a decades old flying brick. The F-22 is quite a bit more advanced than the F-117 in terms of stealth and has much better performance to boot.
...and who the hell do you need stealth to fight anyway?
If the enemy doesn't see you before becoming a flaming piece of wreckage then they can't shoot you down. If they can see you then they can shoot you down, by luck if nothing else no matter how good your plane is.
The F-22 is a full stealth fighter, the EuroFighter is not in any way. If you cannot understand why you cannot base a stealth plane design in any major way on something that is not a stealth plane (hell, no stealth fighter has existed before the F-22) then why are you eve talking about this as you clearly have no idea about anything involved.
And yes the F-22 is likely worth 84% more than the Eurofighter in terms of performance due to stealth alone.
Incidentally since the F-22 is what the F-35 is based on that $70billion has technically led to the creation of two planes, the later of which is being sold quite widely.
As was the US. They only entered the war on the side of the British after years of hedging their bets and procrastinating.
Not really, the US population was rather isolationist during the time period as they also were during WW1. I mean why would an American citizen want to die for a conflict that is thousands of miles away and in no way directly affecting them? Note that Hitler's atrocities were not known about at the time. Nonetheless the US government was providing assistance to the allies (essentially free weapons and supplies) despite the continual problems this caused for relations with the axis.
Sure. Same as, say, in the US now. Well, not quite the same. No amount of propaganda can turn around public opinion on Dubya now. But sure, they had massive progaganda, as you do.
There were people who's families were taken away by Stalin to their death who still believed in their great leader, to them it must be that Stalin just doesn't know about those awful things that are happening. IF you even think the US has a smidge of the soviet propaganda level then I'm not going to bother replying anymore as you're just another crazy delusional person on whom rational argument is a waste.
WTF? So my argument only holds up if Stalin disappeared after WWII? Hold off on the drugs a little.
Yes, as you only mention him during WW2 your argument only applies if he didn't exist after the war due to how different things were during and after the war. Again if you can't understand why things are very different during a continent wide war and after it then there isn't much more I can say.
Well. Firstly, no, I don't expect them to, because I'm far too cynical for that. But secondly, you should take a stand and stick with it. You can't flop this way and that because it suits your purposes. That's called hypocracy.
If being officially friendly to someone means that a million more of your own people don't have to die then its downright evil to not do so. Also hindsight is 20/20 and soviet propaganda was very good both inside and outside the ussr, Stalin didn't do his land grabs and show his real aggression till after the war.
Why?
They both illustrate the lack of good relations between the soviets and the US after the war.
Africa and South America are both still populated with many millions of native people.
The US has a few million Native Americans (well and Inuit and so on) as well, your point? Most indigenous people that could be found were either killed or made effectively slaves.
When was the last time that you've seen a native person in the continental US?
I'm sure I've seen a few, I really don't pay much attention to the race or ethnicity of those I see.
We've got the few that we didn't slaughter locked into "reservations".
They're perfectly free to live wherever they want, granted then they'd need to adapt to outside culture.
The US genocide of the native people here was one of the most complete, effective genocides in recent history.
Recent history? The Native American population has been increasing for the last 50 years and has been more of less stable for the 50 to 100 years before then.
Heck, the US was more effective than even Hitler!
No, that'd be the Europeans and even they they didn't even get close to Hitler. There is a difference between killing a million people over 3 centuries and over 1 year. I mean in Mexico alone between 1521 and 1581 possibly 16 million (out of a total of 18 million) were killed by European influence. If Hitler was in charge of wiping out Natives they'd have all been dead long before the American Revolution.
No, its an extreme waste of time because the result is a virtually useless install and requires nothing more to accomplish than having time to waste.
With linux you can at least have the result do something productive in many cases. For example they have routers that run linux or bsd perfectly fine on hardware as low as this.
Now there are cases where is little value in getting linux to run on something but then it's a technical challenge, altering linux so it works. Again in this case no real technical challenge existed, in various cases they simply gave up as the system wouldn't run on the hardware.
As for Stalin, same thing really. He was an ally during WWII. Various congressmen said he was a 'great leader', a 'very trustworth soul' and other things. No I don't have a link. It's time for you to do some of your own research if you want proof of these quotes. And as with Pol Pot, Stalin never threatened the US.
He was also an ally of Hitler in the beginning. Also, your argument is worse than pathetic since Stalin didn't somehow cease to exist after WW2, just because you are something at one point doesn't mean you are that forever. I mean wtf, do you expect congressman to insult an ally who is proving a large help to the war effort? He could have been eating babies and they'd still have said he was a great man. Hell, his own people thought he was a great man due to the massive amount of propaganda that he used. I can only assume that your "history" books glossed over things like the Berlin Blockade/Airlift or the Korean War.
Compared to who, Europe? The place which has been nearly one giant war zone for centuries with "peace" being "the period until the next continent wide war." Thats not even counting that it was the Europeans who did most of the genocide in the whole world, just look at Africa and South America.
So by your own logic the US is a lot better than most of the western world.
So would you say that someone who electrocutes an innocent person to death despite please by the victim to stop is also a psychopath? What about someone who does what transpired in Abu-Ghraib prison?
Yet it is decently easy to make an average person perform the former and many people did so given proper prompting (granted no one was really electrocuted but the participants thought it was real). For the later to happen you simply need to take a number of people, stick them in a mock prison and randomly make some "prisoners" and other "guard." Within a short time the prisoners will be rebelling and the guards will be abusing the prisoners.
Humans have tortured, raped, pillaged, murdered, exterminated and done countless even worse atrocities to each other since before written history. Hell, if you're not capable of doing such things with relative ease given a proper environment (childhood, society, etc.) then you're not a normal human being.
Such actions are deemed utterly reprehensible in practically all value systems, and in particular the moral framework postulated by all branches of Islam - there simply is no justification for doing something like that, which will stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny....in the branch that they adhere to it is justified, religion is not what some guy says a book says but what the participants believe it is. To them their religion encourages such behavior and in their value system it is perfectly justified. Of course in our value system, or that of most Americans, it is perfectly justifiable to kill them. That doesn't make them any less human than anyone else, just a group of humans who have different views.
Of course it's easier to kill them for their contradictory value system if they're portrayed as less than human but that doesn't make it true.
We call them Mexicans now. Thank god for regulation!
Most of those woman and children from back in the day would likely cut of a limb to have the same working conditions as illegal mexicans have.
Regulation means they are allowed to do this to an extent and cannot be sued. Yeah for regulation!
Wait, you actually think lawsuits would change anything without regulation? Look at the Ford Pinto, businesses simply take into account how likely and expensive a lawsuit will be and if they still make killer profits it doesn't matter.
Not to mention that lawsuits of the magnitude and number needed require a very fucked up legal system and laws that people can sue under.
How exactly is this better than the same public choosing not to do business with said businesses?
I'm not sure if communists or libertarians are larger idiots in their inability to understand humans and human society. If everyone does those sorts of things and actively covers it up you're neither going to have much choice or much information about which businesses don't (if your competition is "clean" then you simply pay people to publish reports that they're not to confuse the public).
Where consumer activism would have given us corporations which realized they must act in socially acceptable ways...wow, I mean just wow. No, consumer advocates cannot possibly deal with all corporations when all they can do is to publish reports. Millions would die from products and activities which aren't detected, those that are detected would simply be written off as cost of business and large amounts of fud would keep people from being truly informed. And that's assuming a modern level of corporate integrity, if you have something more akin to the mafia then costumer advocates would simply disappear once in a while.
I mean I can already see the trojans and bot nets whose design is to fake votes or just DDOS the election servers (likely to give one side an advantage if they have less e-voters). Ah the joys of a brisk black market for selling and buying votes.
The only thing I could see you even referring to would be the VentureStar and the X-33 was not a "working prototype" by any sane measure. The VentureStar was killed because they couldn't get the POS, despite spending millions, to a state (on paper) that was capable of reaching space. Basically it was too heavy and had too little thrust since it had assumed too many exotic materials to actually work properly much less just exist. I mean rockets operate on thin margins and if you use single stage those margins shrink even more, and the project got killed when they couldn't get positive margins because their exotic fuel tanks weren't working (so they went for aluminum which added mass which made the thing incapable of reaching space). I mean in their attempts they re-designed it to the point where it made the shuttle look like a good system (ie: oops, we can't fit the crew inside and cargo so lets add an external pod despite that going against the whole idea of the project).
The Shuttle and anything that looks or acts like it are at the moment inefficient, we don't use them enough and won't use them enough (and if we did we'd lose them all to accidents in the first year likely). NASA went instead with a more time tested design, a rocket and capsule. I mean just look at how many problems the Russian had with Soyuz and yet haven't lost a single one in decades since the design is not absurdly delicate (if the shuttle had the same accident rate we'd likely have a negative number by now).
The problem with the education system isn't money but a lack of value for education in American society. There is a reason all the good schools are filled with immigrants and Asians, their parents still give a damn about the kids being educated.
Compared to what, the 200+ billion used with great care in Iraq? Or the dozens of other massive wastes of funding.
One reason for sending people into space is PR, robots can't talk in front of schoolchildren and congress. Also contrary to the beliefs of some doing things in space is not easy (anyone who even thinks mining an asteroid is in any form easy deserves to be laughed at) and robots can't do things as well as humans. If you want a better justification for the manned space program then you can call it hedging the bets, if anything truly important is found up there then we'd as it stands now need to send people to whatever it is (robots are slow and limited) so we at least keep that option open. Similar reason to why we have F-22s when our enemies can't get a single plane into the air.
about the pointlessness of the space programme.
And you sir apparently can't read, he talked about the pointlessness of the MANNED space program not of space exploration itself.
I've heard that Windows software raid sucks, period. Linux isn't bad and I use it myself due to being lazy and cheap (it's probably more reliably than any of those cheap raid controllers anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
There are likely 25+ economic theories about this and probably twice that many psychological studies (both experimental and non-experimental) on such things. If you really want to know then just look for them, starting in either a psychology or economics books to find initial references.
There is a difference between say taking a 25% pay cut and a 75% pay cut, the difference may be between keeping your family comfortable and barely keeping them clothed + fed. People are willing to make sacrifices since the job is nurturing the next generation and all but very few people are saints. It's like someone bitching about non-profit CEOs making 300k while forgetting that they've essentially have taken a 90% pay cut compared to working for a for-profit company, there is only so much you can expect people to sacrifice and still have any reasonable candidates left.
You have to remember that public schools are not the only option for a teacher, private schools will likely pay much more for much easier work for a good teacher. So its not even competition with other professions but competition with other schools that is there.
Now there are imho bigger problems than money as to why I'd never be a teacher: bureaucracy, idiots, lawsuits, spoiled students, spoiled parents, spoiled female students who accuse me of sexual harassment if I give them a bad grade and so on. I've had to deal with idiotic school administrators at good schools for half a decade as a student and unless I'm doing it for my own family I do not want to ever deal with that again (it got to the point where an assistant principal literally had to yell at the school administrators on my behalf because they were such morons).
In my old High School there used to be a great math teacher but the city refused to pay him what he deserved (didn't honor his degree from Romania) so after many years he had no choice (he had to support his family) but to leave for a private school outside the city (teaching an easier subject at probably three times the salary). The assistant principal of math, another great guy, also left for a private school or something at likewise three times the salary. That was probably more due to bureaucracy and bad feeling I'd say than anything else but that's a different point (you can deal with a lot but at some point its just not worth it given just how much more you can make at another school).
If the answer is "no" or "I don't know" then I may be looking for alternatives.
Yes, its called VPN and to be honest if you're using public/semi-public wi-fi hotspots without it then you deserve whatever happens to you.
And the google study posted a while back disagrees with that, as do a ton of other sources I'd assume. That does not say good things about the accuracy of this study.
By providing an example of a scenario that to modern humans is a "very bad thing"? I mean he's effectively supporting gore and co.'s argument.
I do not consider MySQL to be free enough, for example, becuase they use the GPL licensing of client libs to try to force people to pay them money for more rights.
So? They allow more options for people who want them, yet a company that only has a GPL license and thus limits options is more free?
In short, I don't think that the license is the only consideration when deciding whether software is truly Free. The intentions and actions of those at the center of the community need to be considered as well.
Why? You can fork the project and make a new community if the current developers(s) aren't playing along and you can use their code in your own project. The developer could reply "fuck you bitch" to every email and contribution attempt but if they have the proper license it's still free software.
You are also missing the point that the community isn't the people working on a single project but all projects with compatible licenses, you can use code freely between projects or analyze other code for methods of doing things. Hell, I'd venture to say that is the whole point of free software not the creation of many discrete independent communities (which imho is rather counterproductive especially if incompatible licenses force such divisions and the projects in question address simialr problems).
Not really, if you're the solve developer (or copyright owner) you can release things with any license or combination of them. It's somewhat popular to have a GPL version that can't be easily used in commercial products but also have a version that companies can pay for to bypass that restriction (but have other restrictions as a result). As long as contributors assign you copyright or license their additions under all the licenses you're using then you can even "sell" their code. If you're releasing just binaries it doesn't much matter what license you're using as you can simply assign any one you want when releasing the source (you own the copyright after all).
In your example, with a BSD license once you release the source code its open for any one else to add to their commercial products. With GPL they'd have to pay you assuming you have such a system in place even if you release the source.
It's unlikely that they knew the volume but this being a rocket the mass was measurable. While you can calculate the volume from the mass, due to the rain not being perfectly pure and the temperature not being 4C the volume will not be exactly 540 liters even if the mass is exactly 540 kg (at room temp it'd be ~537 by my calculations).
Sure. But they did exactly the same for Hitler. The US has a long history of providing weapons and other support to both sides in a conflict.
Well then please provide the references, asfaik the US almost exclusively aided the allies by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Providing aid to the axis would have been impractical likely due to the lack of shipping lanes that didn't go through ally territory. You need to reconsider this stance. Propaganda is at an all-time high in the US. It's a different kind to the old-world style. It's a lot more subtle, and yet more powerful at the same time. Read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent for a detailed analysis of the use of propaganda and one-sidedness western societies. It's very interesting. Like I said, I disagree that its anywhere close to what the soviets did or that its all that much worse than what the US did during the cold war. I see. That's the problem then. People like you are willing to compromise their position and support people who they 'claim' to be 'bad people' simply because they need help from these bad people, and then when things are going better, they think they can turn around and show their true colours. It doesn't work like that. Sure, it's done all the time, and yes I understand exactly why. All I'm saying is that it's not a defensible position, and that I despise people - and countries - who act like this. In the real world those who don't compromise, lie and backstab their way are usually found dead in a gutter when someone who does gets annoyed at them. There is no such thing as a "good" nation or, with rare exceptions, a "good person" so in the end it's all about choosing the lesser of many evils.
And sure Hitler was bad. But don't try to argue that that's the reason why the US decided to enter the war or fight against Germany.
Likely it was, having Hitler control all of Europe did not appeal to US leaders although the people didn't seem to mind. The only difference is that dead Americans create political problems at home, so should be avoided if possible. So why did the US enter WW2 at all, Pearl Harbor could have been easily avoided had the US not embargoed Japan (which the US knew would force Japan's hand). Likewise the result was millions of dead Americans so your logic appears to be fault. Oh, the "We didn't know" defense. It's OK for civilians to throw this one out occasionally, but not the ruling class. They knew. They spent a LOT of money making sure they knew. Well then please provide a reference that says so and WW2 propaganda that notes Hitler's atrocities.
Lol, go read exactly how "easy" the F-117A was to detect or shoot down, keep in mind that they were shooting at essentially a decades old flying brick. The F-22 is quite a bit more advanced than the F-117 in terms of stealth and has much better performance to boot.
...and who the hell do you need stealth to fight anyway?
If the enemy doesn't see you before becoming a flaming piece of wreckage then they can't shoot you down. If they can see you then they can shoot you down, by luck if nothing else no matter how good your plane is.
The F-22 is a full stealth fighter, the EuroFighter is not in any way. If you cannot understand why you cannot base a stealth plane design in any major way on something that is not a stealth plane (hell, no stealth fighter has existed before the F-22) then why are you eve talking about this as you clearly have no idea about anything involved.
And yes the F-22 is likely worth 84% more than the Eurofighter in terms of performance due to stealth alone.
Incidentally since the F-22 is what the F-35 is based on that $70billion has technically led to the creation of two planes, the later of which is being sold quite widely.
As was the US. They only entered the war on the side of the British after years of hedging their bets and procrastinating.
Not really, the US population was rather isolationist during the time period as they also were during WW1. I mean why would an American citizen want to die for a conflict that is thousands of miles away and in no way directly affecting them? Note that Hitler's atrocities were not known about at the time. Nonetheless the US government was providing assistance to the allies (essentially free weapons and supplies) despite the continual problems this caused for relations with the axis.
Sure. Same as, say, in the US now. Well, not quite the same. No amount of propaganda can turn around public opinion on Dubya now. But sure, they had massive progaganda, as you do.
There were people who's families were taken away by Stalin to their death who still believed in their great leader, to them it must be that Stalin just doesn't know about those awful things that are happening. IF you even think the US has a smidge of the soviet propaganda level then I'm not going to bother replying anymore as you're just another crazy delusional person on whom rational argument is a waste.
WTF? So my argument only holds up if Stalin disappeared after WWII? Hold off on the drugs a little.
Yes, as you only mention him during WW2 your argument only applies if he didn't exist after the war due to how different things were during and after the war. Again if you can't understand why things are very different during a continent wide war and after it then there isn't much more I can say.
Well. Firstly, no, I don't expect them to, because I'm far too cynical for that. But secondly, you should take a stand and stick with it. You can't flop this way and that because it suits your purposes. That's called hypocracy.
If being officially friendly to someone means that a million more of your own people don't have to die then its downright evil to not do so. Also hindsight is 20/20 and soviet propaganda was very good both inside and outside the ussr, Stalin didn't do his land grabs and show his real aggression till after the war.
Why?
They both illustrate the lack of good relations between the soviets and the US after the war.
Africa and South America are both still populated with many millions of native people.
The US has a few million Native Americans (well and Inuit and so on) as well, your point? Most indigenous people that could be found were either killed or made effectively slaves.
When was the last time that you've seen a native person in the continental US?
I'm sure I've seen a few, I really don't pay much attention to the race or ethnicity of those I see.
We've got the few that we didn't slaughter locked into "reservations".
They're perfectly free to live wherever they want, granted then they'd need to adapt to outside culture.
The US genocide of the native people here was one of the most complete, effective genocides in recent history.
Recent history? The Native American population has been increasing for the last 50 years and has been more of less stable for the 50 to 100 years before then.
Heck, the US was more effective than even Hitler!
No, that'd be the Europeans and even they they didn't even get close to Hitler. There is a difference between killing a million people over 3 centuries and over 1 year. I mean in Mexico alone between 1521 and 1581 possibly 16 million (out of a total of 18 million) were killed by European influence. If Hitler was in charge of wiping out Natives they'd have all been dead long before the American Revolution.
No, its an extreme waste of time because the result is a virtually useless install and requires nothing more to accomplish than having time to waste.
With linux you can at least have the result do something productive in many cases. For example they have routers that run linux or bsd perfectly fine on hardware as low as this.
Now there are cases where is little value in getting linux to run on something but then it's a technical challenge, altering linux so it works. Again in this case no real technical challenge existed, in various cases they simply gave up as the system wouldn't run on the hardware.
As for Stalin, same thing really. He was an ally during WWII. Various congressmen said he was a 'great leader', a 'very trustworth soul' and other things. No I don't have a link. It's time for you to do some of your own research if you want proof of these quotes. And as with Pol Pot, Stalin never threatened the US.
He was also an ally of Hitler in the beginning. Also, your argument is worse than pathetic since Stalin didn't somehow cease to exist after WW2, just because you are something at one point doesn't mean you are that forever. I mean wtf, do you expect congressman to insult an ally who is proving a large help to the war effort? He could have been eating babies and they'd still have said he was a great man. Hell, his own people thought he was a great man due to the massive amount of propaganda that he used. I can only assume that your "history" books glossed over things like the Berlin Blockade/Airlift or the Korean War.
Compared to who, Europe? The place which has been nearly one giant war zone for centuries with "peace" being "the period until the next continent wide war." Thats not even counting that it was the Europeans who did most of the genocide in the whole world, just look at Africa and South America.
So by your own logic the US is a lot better than most of the western world.
So would you say that someone who electrocutes an innocent person to death despite please by the victim to stop is also a psychopath? What about someone who does what transpired in Abu-Ghraib prison?
...in the branch that they adhere to it is justified, religion is not what some guy says a book says but what the participants believe it is. To them their religion encourages such behavior and in their value system it is perfectly justified. Of course in our value system, or that of most Americans, it is perfectly justifiable to kill them. That doesn't make them any less human than anyone else, just a group of humans who have different views.
Yet it is decently easy to make an average person perform the former and many people did so given proper prompting (granted no one was really electrocuted but the participants thought it was real). For the later to happen you simply need to take a number of people, stick them in a mock prison and randomly make some "prisoners" and other "guard." Within a short time the prisoners will be rebelling and the guards will be abusing the prisoners.
Humans have tortured, raped, pillaged, murdered, exterminated and done countless even worse atrocities to each other since before written history. Hell, if you're not capable of doing such things with relative ease given a proper environment (childhood, society, etc.) then you're not a normal human being.
Such actions are deemed utterly reprehensible in practically all value systems, and in particular the moral framework postulated by all branches of Islam - there simply is no justification for doing something like that, which will stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
Of course it's easier to kill them for their contradictory value system if they're portrayed as less than human but that doesn't make it true.
We call them Mexicans now. Thank god for regulation!
...wow, I mean just wow. No, consumer advocates cannot possibly deal with all corporations when all they can do is to publish reports. Millions would die from products and activities which aren't detected, those that are detected would simply be written off as cost of business and large amounts of fud would keep people from being truly informed. And that's assuming a modern level of corporate integrity, if you have something more akin to the mafia then costumer advocates would simply disappear once in a while.
Most of those woman and children from back in the day would likely cut of a limb to have the same working conditions as illegal mexicans have.
Regulation means they are allowed to do this to an extent and cannot be sued. Yeah for regulation!
Wait, you actually think lawsuits would change anything without regulation? Look at the Ford Pinto, businesses simply take into account how likely and expensive a lawsuit will be and if they still make killer profits it doesn't matter.
Not to mention that lawsuits of the magnitude and number needed require a very fucked up legal system and laws that people can sue under.
How exactly is this better than the same public choosing not to do business with said businesses?
I'm not sure if communists or libertarians are larger idiots in their inability to understand humans and human society. If everyone does those sorts of things and actively covers it up you're neither going to have much choice or much information about which businesses don't (if your competition is "clean" then you simply pay people to publish reports that they're not to confuse the public).
Where consumer activism would have given us corporations which realized they must act in socially acceptable ways
I mean I can already see the trojans and bot nets whose design is to fake votes or just DDOS the election servers (likely to give one side an advantage if they have less e-voters). Ah the joys of a brisk black market for selling and buying votes.
The only thing I could see you even referring to would be the VentureStar and the X-33 was not a "working prototype" by any sane measure. The VentureStar was killed because they couldn't get the POS, despite spending millions, to a state (on paper) that was capable of reaching space. Basically it was too heavy and had too little thrust since it had assumed too many exotic materials to actually work properly much less just exist. I mean rockets operate on thin margins and if you use single stage those margins shrink even more, and the project got killed when they couldn't get positive margins because their exotic fuel tanks weren't working (so they went for aluminum which added mass which made the thing incapable of reaching space). I mean in their attempts they re-designed it to the point where it made the shuttle look like a good system (ie: oops, we can't fit the crew inside and cargo so lets add an external pod despite that going against the whole idea of the project).
The Shuttle and anything that looks or acts like it are at the moment inefficient, we don't use them enough and won't use them enough (and if we did we'd lose them all to accidents in the first year likely). NASA went instead with a more time tested design, a rocket and capsule. I mean just look at how many problems the Russian had with Soyuz and yet haven't lost a single one in decades since the design is not absurdly delicate (if the shuttle had the same accident rate we'd likely have a negative number by now).
the potential returns are really really huge.
such as? And I mean sane timetables, 50 years for any sort of decent return is not sane.
The problem with the education system isn't money but a lack of value for education in American society. There is a reason all the good schools are filled with immigrants and Asians, their parents still give a damn about the kids being educated.
Compared to what, the 200+ billion used with great care in Iraq? Or the dozens of other massive wastes of funding.
One reason for sending people into space is PR, robots can't talk in front of schoolchildren and congress. Also contrary to the beliefs of some doing things in space is not easy (anyone who even thinks mining an asteroid is in any form easy deserves to be laughed at) and robots can't do things as well as humans. If you want a better justification for the manned space program then you can call it hedging the bets, if anything truly important is found up there then we'd as it stands now need to send people to whatever it is (robots are slow and limited) so we at least keep that option open. Similar reason to why we have F-22s when our enemies can't get a single plane into the air.
about the pointlessness of the space programme.
And you sir apparently can't read, he talked about the pointlessness of the MANNED space program not of space exploration itself.
I've heard that Windows software raid sucks, period. Linux isn't bad and I use it myself due to being lazy and cheap (it's probably more reliably than any of those cheap raid controllers anyway).