I've been waiting some 20 years for home virtual reality and yet I still can't go into a shop and buy an immersive virtual reality games system or even a decent Head Mounted Display that has anything like human field of view. I'd like to be able to walk around games like Oblivion and look up at a huge castle by tilting my head back, giving me a real sense of how small I am in the world. I could buy a HMD now, but the FOV is like tunnel vision and so is hardly immersive. In fact FOV rather than stereo viewing is probably the most important thing for immersion since your binocular vision breaks down quite quickly over distance.
I wonder how many more years we are going to have to wait. It's really annoying since we have the computer power now (Compared to the Dactyl Nightmare cube graphics days) , but the visual hardware is lagging far behind and there doesn't seem to be much will to bring VR to the masses.
I can only speak for the UK. I finished my GCSE's in 1992, A-Levels (Physics, Chemistry and Maths) in 1994, and Physics Masters in 1998.
There are a few reasons I think it's been happening. At some point the creation of exam papers became a business, so schools started shopping around for the easiest exam board. This has had the effect of driving the difficulty of exams down. This downward spiral should have been stopped immediately by a central exam regulator (I assume we have one) but either they are useless, powerless, or (more likely) they are under pressure by the government to let exams through, since record exams scores "look good".
Another problem in the UK is that Labour have tried to open up University to too many people. My naive idea of education is that by the time you get to University level, only the smart people are supposed to be left. Not rich, not poor, but smart. This is at odds with sending so many people to university because most people are just not that smart. The only way you can have so many people going to university is by A. Letting them take simple things like Media Studies. or/and by making the hard subjects (Physics, Maths etc) much easier. Both of these things seem to have happened.
The other sad effect of pretending everyone is a genius is that it's no longer possible for the government to pay for your university education. The people making the decisions in government today got full grants, whereas students today are often in debt for years. I managed to finish my degree before grants ended, but if I was 18 again, I'm not really sure I could face all that debt, so I would probably never go to university in today's world. The sad thing is, the next Newton or Einstein may make the same decision and end up flipping burgers instead, all so that huge crowds of people can get a degree in media studies.
Back in the dial-up days I didn't use the internet much due to telephone costs. I was always looking at the clock and trying to get things done quickly. It wasn't a great experience. Now with Virgin Media's aggressive throttling policy, it kind of feels like I'm back on Dial-up again. I've had to install DU Meter to keep tabs on my downloads and it's amazing how much ordinary browsing generates these days, especially if you like Youtube. It doesn't take much for me to hit their daily download limit and be slammed back down to 1mbps. Just downloading one TV Show from ITunes can do it. Perhaps if they didn't spend so much money on Uma Thurman and Samuel L Jackson advertising it, they could actually afford to upgrade their equipment and deliver a service in tune with modern Internet usage.
Yes they really shafted their users there. There are plenty of small companies with hundreds of thousands of lines of VB6 code who can't afford to do a rewrite.
No, there is something bizarrely unique about actors which means they have to get paid for a job forever. We're just lucky other professions haven't cottoned on to this scam, otherwise you would have to pay your plumber every time you turn on the tap.
Yet the US continues to harbour Luis Posada Carriles, who is suspect of bombing a Cuban airliner. Venezuela has been trying to get him extradited for years, but the US refuses. The last time a country refused to hand over suspected terrorists, it was invaded as a result. That country was of course, Afghanistan.
I think the counterargument would be something to the effect that the US shouldn't help a government such as China's to maintain control over its people.
The same can be said far more strongly against US weapons sales to the Saudi government. It's one of the most oppressive regimes in the world (even Iran looks good by comparison). If there's ever some kind of democratic uprising there, the government will no doubt use these US supplied weapons against it's own people.
Although 911 had a high death toll, groups like Al Qaeda couldn't possibly hope to match states when it comes to killing civilians. The Indonesian government used widespread terrorism against it's own people and those of East Timor with a death toll of several hundred thousand. Of course, today we are interested in not only the perpetrators of the terror, but those that support them. In the case of Indonesia under Suharto, the supporters were countries like the US and UK who supplied arms knowing full well what they were being used for.
Then of course there is the famous case of US support for terrorism in Nicaragua, for which the country was condemned by the World Court. The death toll was around 50,000. One of the things the US was condemned for in that case was the mining of Nicaraguan harbours, putting civilian shipping in danger. If Al Qaeda did the same thing, it would be immediately recognised as a terrorist act.
The Iranians initially said they developed the centrifuge tech themselves
Yes, they make all sorts of big claims, including claiming they are running more centrifuges than they actually are. They are playing to a home audience with this bravado.
Some Iranians joke that if the US wasn't opposed Mahmoud would drop enrichment.
There is a clear aspect of national pride and stubbornness, yes.
These assurances were reiterated in 1995 with Resolution 984, and this time all 5 nuclear states gave statements of assurance to non-nuclear states.
None of these resolutions say that the big 5 will nuke anyone who attacks a non-nuclear weapons state and they certainly do not say that they must keep nuclear weapons permanently for that purpose. The clear NPT obligations to disarm stand.
The issue here is Article III, which expressly requires signatories to adopt safeguards that allow external observers to verify the peaceful nature of their nuclear programs
Although Iran has been found in non-compliance with some aspects of its IAEA safeguards obligations, Iran has not been in breach of its obligations under the terms of the NPT. The Security Council can demand anything it likes, but that has little to do with the NPT.
The fact that you tried to turn this into an anti-American rant further underscores your ignorance on the subject. Please take a few moments to try to educate yourself before spouting off again.
I pointed out that the big 5, including the US are actually the major violators of the NPT due to their failure to disarm. If I were to criticise the policies of Berlusconi, would you call me anti-Italian? I find "anti-American" to be a very silly and nebulous word.
Please take a few moments to try to educate yourself before spouting off again.
Try not to confuse non-compliance with the actual requirements of the NPT with non-compliance with a safeguards agreement due to a "failure to report".
To which their best response is to talk. It would be insane for any nation, especially a smaller one, to attack either the United States, China, Russia, or any of the other G-8 nations with nuclear weapons. The retaliatory response makes such an action unthinkable under any circumstances.
The purpose for a smaller nation in obtaining nuclear weapons would be one of deterrence. For example, the United States would not have risked invading Iraq if they though New York would be nuked in response, regardless of any nuclear superiority.
It would be better for Iran to talk, if their motives are truley peaceful as they claim. They should make the case clearly and let the court of world opinion decide instead of being secretive and coy with their international relations.
They are subject to IAEA inspections just like other NPT signatories. The inspections are there to ensure countries are not violating the treaty. How do you know that Brazil isn't secretly developing nuclear weapons? All we have to go on is the IAEA inspections, so if they are not good enough to keep tabs on Iran, then they are no good for other countries either. Allowing people to look around your facilities is not a particularly secretive stance. If you want to be secretive, the best thing to do would be to withdraw from the NPT.
If the economic case is rational and logical and the Iranians were willing to be reasonable then the world and the IAEA and the United States would listen.
People have asked why Iran, a country with so much oil, needs nuclear power. The problem is you can ask the same thing of many other countries. For example, why is Britain, a country with so much coal, thinking about building new nuclear power stations?
They would be given a fair hearing, if they renounced terrorism as official state policy and proceeded as outlined above.
Perhaps you are referring to Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah? The problem is, if supporting such groups classifies your country as a supporter of terrorism, then the US along with many other countries fall into the same category. For example, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan were supported by the US and they committed numerous terrorist acts. The KLA were supported by the US (and others) and they committed all sorts of crimes including ethnic cleansing. The US also supported the Contras in Nicaragua who committed vast numbers of terrorist acts and in the full knowledge they were committing them.
Not only did the US support such terrorist groups but the US has also committed terrorist acts itself. For example the US was condemned by the World Court for it's terrorist acts against Nicaragua, which included mining the harbours and putting civilian shipping in danger. These issues naturally come to light when you start holding all countries to the same standards.
Huh? Israel has never signed the NPT, so the IAEA has never been authorized to conduct inspections in Israel.
JFK sent inspectors to take a look at Diomona in 1962 and the Israelis had built a "fake wall" at the plant to hide weapons operations. The inspections were obviously not in the framework of the NPT since it didn't even exist at that time. My point was that inspections are not foolproof, whoever conducts them.
Putting control of such an important part of a State's energy supply in the hands of other people would be an unacceptable threat to national sovereignty.
This is no doubt the opinion of the current President of Iran as well.
The big 5 cannot disarm- they are required by the UN Security Council to maintain a nuclear arsenal to protect the non-nuclear signatories of the treaty.
Which resolution is that? Can you provide a reference? I am fairly certain no such directive exists since it would be completely at odds with the NPT.
As always, it boils down to who has the biggest guns.
That may be the case now, but we had better move past that mentality if we want to survive.
Well initially they were offensive, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then as soon as Russia got them as well, they became defensive. Now we are really back to them being offensive again. Smaller countries feel threatened by the US, both in the Middle East and of course in Central and South America. If there is anything that is going to drive countries to develop nuclear weapons, it is the fear of invasion or even a limited nuclear strike by powerful countries like the US.
The NPT allows for a civilian nuclear program, so they are entitled to one in the context of that agreement. It's better that countries are within the NPT and being monitored than outside it, so the stance being taken against Iran is very damaging to the NPT itself. As for Iran having a right to arm itself, I presume you mean with Nuclear weapons. That would be a violation of the NPT. I'm not in favour of Iran or any other country developing nuclear weapons. The IAEA inspections are supposed to prevent that, but you can of course never be sure, as Israel showed. However, that risk exists in many countries. If IAEA inspections are not a sufficient check for Iran, then they are really not a sufficient check for any country.
It would be better if no countries were enriching Uranium at all and it was all being done at some large central monitored facility. Everyone would be in the same boat and there would be no sense of hypocrisy (other than the failure of the big 5 to disarm). Such a proposal is unlikely to be accepted by the major players though. The US wouldn't even agree to the FISSBAN treaty banning the production of weapons grade material.
International agreements can work, but not if they are only honoured by some countries. If it looks like some countries have no intention of fulfilling their obligations, as is the case with the NPT, then the treaty is ultimately doomed. The NPT is supposed to be a two-way street. The big 5 disarm and help other countries with their civilian nuclear programs while those countries agree to IAEA inspections and refrain from developing nuclear weapons. At the moment the NPT is being used to enforce a nuclear apartheid, and that's just not going to wash forever. Countries will just start saying "You clearly aren't going to disarm and you are more likely to use the NPT against us that actually help us with our programmes, so we are withdrawing."
Please spare me your diatribe about the Shah and SAVAK -- compared to the Mullahs of today many Iranians were better off during the Shah's reign than today.
I'm sure many Iranians got rich while the Shah was in power, but thousands of others were tortured and murdered by the SAVAK, an organisation trained and supported by the CIA and designed to curb dissent and keep the unpopular Shah in power. Iran might still have a parliamentary democracy now if we hadn't wrecked the one they had back in 1953 when we installed the Shah to regain control of the oil (which Mossadegh mistakenly believed belonged to Iran). After the revolution, the Iranians might not have got the democracy that many wanted, but they certainly don't want another Shah and his SAVAK.
Even if Iran does miraculously become a democracy, the US won't be happy unless it's the "right" kind of democracy. If it's a socialist or left leaning democracy that wants control of it's own oil, it's going to face similar problems to Venezuela. It might even face another US-backed coup, like the failed attempt in Venezuela in 2002.
As for Assyrians, Armenians and Jews leaving Iran, I am not surprised. I wouldn't want to live in Iran either. However, there are a large number of Jews in Iran and Israel has failed to entice them to leave. Perhaps they do not approve of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, or perhaps they are proud of being Iranian, I don't know. The difference with the current regime in Iran is that we are not actively supporting it as we did with the Shah and as we continue to do with Saudi Arabia which has one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.
Signatories to the NPT are allowed to enrich Uranium as part of a civilian program. Perhaps if Iran had not been the target of US sanctions since 1979 (when they overthrew the brutal western-backed Shah and his CIA-trained SAVAK secret police), they would be more trusting about getting their nuclear fuel from outside. As it is, they have a mentality of being as independent and self-sufficient as possible.
Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but the major nuclear powers are, since they have not disarmed and have no intention of doing so. In fact new nuclear weapons systems are being developed right now. Why then does the media not focus on the NPT violations of the big 5? Perhaps people feel the big 5 are so responsible that it's ok for them to posses them, but frankly the historical record does not back that up. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside, Richard Nixon is on tape suggesting a nuclear strike on North Vietnam and before the Iraq war, UK Minister of Defence Geoff Hoon threatened Iraq with a nuclear strike (crazy I know).
The big 5 want to maintain a permanent nuclear apartheid whereby they keep their weapons (and threaten others with them, explicitly or implicitly) while preventing any other country from developing them. It's not a sustainable situation. You can't wave your gun about and then expect everybody else to refrain from acquiring guns of their own. It is the major powers themselves that are putting us all in a huge amount of long term danger due to their failure to disarm. That should be the real focus of media attention.
The Canadian government then forbade any company operating on Canadian soil from obeying the embargo
The EU did pretty much the same thing, but it's sure to have frightened away some companies. Saudi Arabia makes Cuba look like a model free society, yet the oppressive regime there is supported by the US. The US stance against Cuba has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Indeed the history of US policy in the region has been one of deterring democracy, not promoting it.
The US wants cooperative governments that are friendly to US business interests. The current government of Venezuela fails both those tests, so despite being a democracy, the US is trying to undermine it and there was of course the coup attempt in 2002 as well. Such a coup attempt is far easier to organise in an open society like Venezuela than in Cuba, which is probably one of the reasons Cuba has been closed up so tight for so long.
The US is also trying to undermine the current Bolivian government for much the same reason. The US government far preferred the previous business friendly regime, despite the massacres perpetrated against the Bolivian people.
There is no reason any import market has to be a black market, Cuba is free to trade with the rest of the world
The US has tried to threaten companies that if they deal with Cuba, they can't operate within the US. The EU got very angry over the issue. Whether the US managed to frighten companies off, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised though.
As for the "decades old grudge", yes, it is a grudge. When Castro ousted the US-backed Batista, the US lost control, and US Policy towards Cuba has been about control right from the beginning. A condition of the US troops withdrawing from Cuba in 1901 was that they sign the Platt Amendment, which gave the US all sorts of powers over Cuba. It was very much a Godfather-style "offer you can't refuse". Although the Platt Amendment was repealed in 1934, the US kept one of the clauses which was the Naval base at Guantanamo. According to the Platt Amendment clause, it can only be removed with the consent of both parties, which is completely ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
See above
I've been waiting some 20 years for home virtual reality and yet I still can't go into a shop and buy an immersive virtual reality games system or even a decent Head Mounted Display that has anything like human field of view. I'd like to be able to walk around games like Oblivion and look up at a huge castle by tilting my head back, giving me a real sense of how small I am in the world. I could buy a HMD now, but the FOV is like tunnel vision and so is hardly immersive. In fact FOV rather than stereo viewing is probably the most important thing for immersion since your binocular vision breaks down quite quickly over distance.
I wonder how many more years we are going to have to wait. It's really annoying since we have the computer power now (Compared to the Dactyl Nightmare cube graphics days) , but the visual hardware is lagging far behind and there doesn't seem to be much will to bring VR to the masses.
I'm with Virgin Media too. Their aggressive throttling really does suck. It's completely out of touch with modern internet usage.
I can only speak for the UK. I finished my GCSE's in 1992, A-Levels (Physics, Chemistry and Maths) in 1994, and Physics Masters in 1998.
There are a few reasons I think it's been happening. At some point the creation of exam papers became a business, so schools started shopping around for the easiest exam board. This has had the effect of driving the difficulty of exams down. This downward spiral should have been stopped immediately by a central exam regulator (I assume we have one) but either they are useless, powerless, or (more likely) they are under pressure by the government to let exams through, since record exams scores "look good".
Another problem in the UK is that Labour have tried to open up University to too many people. My naive idea of education is that by the time you get to University level, only the smart people are supposed to be left. Not rich, not poor, but smart. This is at odds with sending so many people to university because most people are just not that smart. The only way you can have so many people going to university is by A. Letting them take simple things like Media Studies. or/and by making the hard subjects (Physics, Maths etc) much easier. Both of these things seem to have happened.
The other sad effect of pretending everyone is a genius is that it's no longer possible for the government to pay for your university education. The people making the decisions in government today got full grants, whereas students today are often in debt for years. I managed to finish my degree before grants ended, but if I was 18 again, I'm not really sure I could face all that debt, so I would probably never go to university in today's world. The sad thing is, the next Newton or Einstein may make the same decision and end up flipping burgers instead, all so that huge crowds of people can get a degree in media studies.
Back in the dial-up days I didn't use the internet much due to telephone costs. I was always looking at the clock and trying to get things done quickly. It wasn't a great experience. Now with Virgin Media's aggressive throttling policy, it kind of feels like I'm back on Dial-up again. I've had to install DU Meter to keep tabs on my downloads and it's amazing how much ordinary browsing generates these days, especially if you like Youtube. It doesn't take much for me to hit their daily download limit and be slammed back down to 1mbps. Just downloading one TV Show from ITunes can do it. Perhaps if they didn't spend so much money on Uma Thurman and Samuel L Jackson advertising it, they could actually afford to upgrade their equipment and deliver a service in tune with modern Internet usage.
Yes they really shafted their users there. There are plenty of small companies with hundreds of thousands of lines of VB6 code who can't afford to do a rewrite.
No, there is something bizarrely unique about actors which means they have to get paid for a job forever. We're just lucky other professions haven't cottoned on to this scam, otherwise you would have to pay your plumber every time you turn on the tap.
I don't recall the Taliban giving permission at the time.
Yet the US continues to harbour Luis Posada Carriles, who is suspect of bombing a Cuban airliner. Venezuela has been trying to get him extradited for years, but the US refuses. The last time a country refused to hand over suspected terrorists, it was invaded as a result. That country was of course, Afghanistan.
The same can be said far more strongly against US weapons sales to the Saudi government. It's one of the most oppressive regimes in the world (even Iran looks good by comparison). If there's ever some kind of democratic uprising there, the government will no doubt use these US supplied weapons against it's own people.
8 gigs a day is pretty good. Virgin Media throttle the hell out of you for having the gall to download a few hundred megs.
Although 911 had a high death toll, groups like Al Qaeda couldn't possibly hope to match states when it comes to killing civilians. The Indonesian government used widespread terrorism against it's own people and those of East Timor with a death toll of several hundred thousand. Of course, today we are interested in not only the perpetrators of the terror, but those that support them. In the case of Indonesia under Suharto, the supporters were countries like the US and UK who supplied arms knowing full well what they were being used for.
Then of course there is the famous case of US support for terrorism in Nicaragua, for which the country was condemned by the World Court. The death toll was around 50,000. One of the things the US was condemned for in that case was the mining of Nicaraguan harbours, putting civilian shipping in danger. If Al Qaeda did the same thing, it would be immediately recognised as a terrorist act.
Yes, they make all sorts of big claims, including claiming they are running more centrifuges than they actually are. They are playing to a home audience with this bravado.
Some Iranians joke that if the US wasn't opposed Mahmoud would drop enrichment.
There is a clear aspect of national pride and stubbornness, yes.
None of these resolutions say that the big 5 will nuke anyone who attacks a non-nuclear weapons state and they certainly do not say that they must keep nuclear weapons permanently for that purpose. The clear NPT obligations to disarm stand.
Although Iran has been found in non-compliance with some aspects of its IAEA safeguards obligations, Iran has not been in breach of its obligations under the terms of the NPT. The Security Council can demand anything it likes, but that has little to do with the NPT.
The fact that you tried to turn this into an anti-American rant further underscores your ignorance on the subject. Please take a few moments to try to educate yourself before spouting off again.
I pointed out that the big 5, including the US are actually the major violators of the NPT due to their failure to disarm. If I were to criticise the policies of Berlusconi, would you call me anti-Italian? I find "anti-American" to be a very silly and nebulous word. Please take a few moments to try to educate yourself before spouting off again.
Try not to confuse non-compliance with the actual requirements of the NPT with non-compliance with a safeguards agreement due to a "failure to report".
The purpose for a smaller nation in obtaining nuclear weapons would be one of deterrence. For example, the United States would not have risked invading Iraq if they though New York would be nuked in response, regardless of any nuclear superiority.
It would be better for Iran to talk, if their motives are truley peaceful as they claim. They should make the case clearly and let the court of world opinion decide instead of being secretive and coy with their international relations.
They are subject to IAEA inspections just like other NPT signatories. The inspections are there to ensure countries are not violating the treaty. How do you know that Brazil isn't secretly developing nuclear weapons? All we have to go on is the IAEA inspections, so if they are not good enough to keep tabs on Iran, then they are no good for other countries either. Allowing people to look around your facilities is not a particularly secretive stance. If you want to be secretive, the best thing to do would be to withdraw from the NPT.
If the economic case is rational and logical and the Iranians were willing to be reasonable then the world and the IAEA and the United States would listen.
People have asked why Iran, a country with so much oil, needs nuclear power. The problem is you can ask the same thing of many other countries. For example, why is Britain, a country with so much coal, thinking about building new nuclear power stations?
They would be given a fair hearing, if they renounced terrorism as official state policy and proceeded as outlined above.
Perhaps you are referring to Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah? The problem is, if supporting such groups classifies your country as a supporter of terrorism, then the US along with many other countries fall into the same category. For example, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan were supported by the US and they committed numerous terrorist acts. The KLA were supported by the US (and others) and they committed all sorts of crimes including ethnic cleansing. The US also supported the Contras in Nicaragua who committed vast numbers of terrorist acts and in the full knowledge they were committing them.
Not only did the US support such terrorist groups but the US has also committed terrorist acts itself. For example the US was condemned by the World Court for it's terrorist acts against Nicaragua, which included mining the harbours and putting civilian shipping in danger. These issues naturally come to light when you start holding all countries to the same standards.
JFK sent inspectors to take a look at Diomona in 1962 and the Israelis had built a "fake wall" at the plant to hide weapons operations. The inspections were obviously not in the framework of the NPT since it didn't even exist at that time. My point was that inspections are not foolproof, whoever conducts them.
Putting control of such an important part of a State's energy supply in the hands of other people would be an unacceptable threat to national sovereignty.
This is no doubt the opinion of the current President of Iran as well.
The big 5 cannot disarm- they are required by the UN Security Council to maintain a nuclear arsenal to protect the non-nuclear signatories of the treaty.
Which resolution is that? Can you provide a reference? I am fairly certain no such directive exists since it would be completely at odds with the NPT.
As always, it boils down to who has the biggest guns.
That may be the case now, but we had better move past that mentality if we want to survive.
He might have been thinking of the ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) treaty.
Well initially they were offensive, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then as soon as Russia got them as well, they became defensive. Now we are really back to them being offensive again. Smaller countries feel threatened by the US, both in the Middle East and of course in Central and South America. If there is anything that is going to drive countries to develop nuclear weapons, it is the fear of invasion or even a limited nuclear strike by powerful countries like the US.
The NPT allows for a civilian nuclear program, so they are entitled to one in the context of that agreement. It's better that countries are within the NPT and being monitored than outside it, so the stance being taken against Iran is very damaging to the NPT itself. As for Iran having a right to arm itself, I presume you mean with Nuclear weapons. That would be a violation of the NPT. I'm not in favour of Iran or any other country developing nuclear weapons. The IAEA inspections are supposed to prevent that, but you can of course never be sure, as Israel showed. However, that risk exists in many countries. If IAEA inspections are not a sufficient check for Iran, then they are really not a sufficient check for any country.
It would be better if no countries were enriching Uranium at all and it was all being done at some large central monitored facility. Everyone would be in the same boat and there would be no sense of hypocrisy (other than the failure of the big 5 to disarm). Such a proposal is unlikely to be accepted by the major players though. The US wouldn't even agree to the FISSBAN treaty banning the production of weapons grade material.
International agreements can work, but not if they are only honoured by some countries. If it looks like some countries have no intention of fulfilling their obligations, as is the case with the NPT, then the treaty is ultimately doomed. The NPT is supposed to be a two-way street. The big 5 disarm and help other countries with their civilian nuclear programs while those countries agree to IAEA inspections and refrain from developing nuclear weapons. At the moment the NPT is being used to enforce a nuclear apartheid, and that's just not going to wash forever. Countries will just start saying "You clearly aren't going to disarm and you are more likely to use the NPT against us that actually help us with our programmes, so we are withdrawing."
I'm sure many Iranians got rich while the Shah was in power, but thousands of others were tortured and murdered by the SAVAK, an organisation trained and supported by the CIA and designed to curb dissent and keep the unpopular Shah in power. Iran might still have a parliamentary democracy now if we hadn't wrecked the one they had back in 1953 when we installed the Shah to regain control of the oil (which Mossadegh mistakenly believed belonged to Iran). After the revolution, the Iranians might not have got the democracy that many wanted, but they certainly don't want another Shah and his SAVAK.
Even if Iran does miraculously become a democracy, the US won't be happy unless it's the "right" kind of democracy. If it's a socialist or left leaning democracy that wants control of it's own oil, it's going to face similar problems to Venezuela. It might even face another US-backed coup, like the failed attempt in Venezuela in 2002.
As for Assyrians, Armenians and Jews leaving Iran, I am not surprised. I wouldn't want to live in Iran either. However, there are a large number of Jews in Iran and Israel has failed to entice them to leave. Perhaps they do not approve of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, or perhaps they are proud of being Iranian, I don't know. The difference with the current regime in Iran is that we are not actively supporting it as we did with the Shah and as we continue to do with Saudi Arabia which has one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.
Signatories to the NPT are allowed to enrich Uranium as part of a civilian program. Perhaps if Iran had not been the target of US sanctions since 1979 (when they overthrew the brutal western-backed Shah and his CIA-trained SAVAK secret police), they would be more trusting about getting their nuclear fuel from outside. As it is, they have a mentality of being as independent and self-sufficient as possible.
Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but the major nuclear powers are, since they have not disarmed and have no intention of doing so. In fact new nuclear weapons systems are being developed right now. Why then does the media not focus on the NPT violations of the big 5? Perhaps people feel the big 5 are so responsible that it's ok for them to posses them, but frankly the historical record does not back that up. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside, Richard Nixon is on tape suggesting a nuclear strike on North Vietnam and before the Iraq war, UK Minister of Defence Geoff Hoon threatened Iraq with a nuclear strike (crazy I know).
The big 5 want to maintain a permanent nuclear apartheid whereby they keep their weapons (and threaten others with them, explicitly or implicitly) while preventing any other country from developing them. It's not a sustainable situation. You can't wave your gun about and then expect everybody else to refrain from acquiring guns of their own. It is the major powers themselves that are putting us all in a huge amount of long term danger due to their failure to disarm. That should be the real focus of media attention.
The EU did pretty much the same thing, but it's sure to have frightened away some companies. Saudi Arabia makes Cuba look like a model free society, yet the oppressive regime there is supported by the US. The US stance against Cuba has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Indeed the history of US policy in the region has been one of deterring democracy, not promoting it.
The US wants cooperative governments that are friendly to US business interests. The current government of Venezuela fails both those tests, so despite being a democracy, the US is trying to undermine it and there was of course the coup attempt in 2002 as well. Such a coup attempt is far easier to organise in an open society like Venezuela than in Cuba, which is probably one of the reasons Cuba has been closed up so tight for so long.
The US is also trying to undermine the current Bolivian government for much the same reason. The US government far preferred the previous business friendly regime, despite the massacres perpetrated against the Bolivian people.
The US has tried to threaten companies that if they deal with Cuba, they can't operate within the US. The EU got very angry over the issue. Whether the US managed to frighten companies off, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised though.
As for the "decades old grudge", yes, it is a grudge. When Castro ousted the US-backed Batista, the US lost control, and US Policy towards Cuba has been about control right from the beginning. A condition of the US troops withdrawing from Cuba in 1901 was that they sign the Platt Amendment, which gave the US all sorts of powers over Cuba. It was very much a Godfather-style "offer you can't refuse". Although the Platt Amendment was repealed in 1934, the US kept one of the clauses which was the Naval base at Guantanamo. According to the Platt Amendment clause, it can only be removed with the consent of both parties, which is completely ridiculous.
...in base-2 money :)