I happen to work for a software company with Vista in the name... 'Vista Entertainment Solutions' and our product is marketed as 'Vista'. It has been since 1995.
That's hilarious. All you have to do to get a +5 around here is spew some random fact about how America is teh eVal (not that there aren't many valid criticisms).
So your point is?
but your the tone of post pisses me off so much that I really don't give a shit about the valid points you made.
Christ, you get annoyed by *America Bashing*, but conveniently forget that these views do not come from a void.
The western hemisphere didn't get up one day and decide that it needed to spend its time posting on slashdot saying 'America is te Sux0r'. It's not like we sit here all day wondering how our lives are incomplete unless we piss of some Americans.
Rather if people in *other* countries have enough feeling on American policies, even if they are blunt and to the point (BTW Well done grandparent) you may wonder why they have enough feeling on the subject to spend 20 minutes of the day writing something like that. And it's not for the usual crap you are spoonfed about *hating our freedoms*.
BTW - where do you come from? I'm sure it's a perfect place without problems of it's own.
I'm sure it isn't, but look at it this way. Let's say the poster comes from New Zealand. What foriegn policy of this country affects you, or world geopolitical events? Compare with current American empire building, how does that affect the poster?
I would be surprised if you knew of a policy of the former, while the latter drastically affects world stability. Does that mean that if you really don't care about the formers policies, healthy debate about the latter should be outlawed?
And before you come back with the general argument that since America is the only remaining superpower, hence they will annoy other countries no matter the policy, just remember that smaller countries have affected world events by misguided policies (Afganastans harbouring of terrorists for example, it isn't like that wasn't a large talking point and discussion in America for a very long time)
As a New Zealander, I agree... don't find out how to move here, assume you can't and stay in the States...
Yes, there are alot of restrictions to moving here, but they are simalar to most countries. We go off a points system, and you get points for things like the industry you are in,education, your age, your financial situation etc...
Although with the changes in the exchange rate lately, you would have been far better off moving here a couple of years back.
"They try hard to keep the few jobs they have for their citizens". I'm actually surprised by this comment, our IT industry is doing quite well at the moment. From the feedback I got talking to people at a conference in the States a couple of months back, our IT outlook looks cheery in comparison.
Anyway, My $.02. If you actually wanted an answer to the question.
By the way I couldn't let this one go:
"President Bush issued Saddam a final ultimatum [whitehouse.gov], which he ignored."
Hitler did the same thing to Poland.
This is to turn into an infinite loop if we keep going in this thread, and to be quite honest, it's not going to get either one of us anywhere. (I can no longer spend the 40mins required to articulate a point by point rebuttal as I have a release to some Canadian customers in 3 days)
But it is nice to have a debate with someone, who's views I disagree with strongly and is articulate enough to convey them.
I had quite a few of the same views as you for a very long time. That infact the United States is a 'Western Big Brother' if you like. Growing up in New Zealand (Not Australia, but close), I spent much time writing up the military tactics involved in the first Gulf war for school assignments, and basically reading all I could on the great triumph s of the US, UK and NZ militaries over the last 50 years, reading the major news outlets and first hand accounts by soldiers etc...
Then I started reading some alternate sources for scholarly sake, things so far left by American standards that they might as well come back around the other side. (Things like Pilger and Chomsky for example)
These sort of books see conflict as the result not of limited strategic failure, or 'evildoers'. Rather they see them as the result of many years of complex factors, alot of which revolve around the placement and propping up of regimes for the purposes of profiteering.
Interesting side note, and something I've always wanted to talk to with an American of opposite views (I've only met people from the US with similar views): By my best calculations the US Democrat party is around where our furthest right parties are, any party that advocates non free healthcare and lack of state support for unemployment after a two year period (although out IT sector is pretty strong at the moment) as extreme right wing, bordering on dangerous. Which I suppose brings up the bigger question of why two countries with similar backgrounds, ethnic makeups and the same military conflicts are so different politically on a number of isses? The other common question I hear is: Why is liberal a dirty word in the United States?
Sorry, got sidetracked. Ignore the last if you like
Of all your comments, I am quite disturbed by your comments re Israel. It's quite clear that any solution in the middle east will have to involve the creation of a palestinian state in some form or another. Looking back at the history from when the Jewish state was created after the second world war in Palestine through the ever widening Israeli borders, I am not sure if Israel wants an equitable solution. I mean some of the stuff that goes on is straight out of the South African Apartheid handbook. Is Israel under threat more than the 'Arabs'? Yes. Is it under more threat than the Palestinians. No.
What are the alternatives? Destruction is Israel? Destruction of Palestine? or perhaps a solution that would be acceptable to both sides involving some sort of 'Nationhood' for the palestinians?
Is this a high price for peace for Israel?
I would start addressing alot of the other issues here, comparing the cases of misleading of the public on Fox News vs al jazeera, the 'isolated' case of the shooting of an unarmed and injured man in Iraq today (How dumb do you have to be to do it with a camera in the room), and the definition of when a war is 'over' (surely If the Afganis are held as P.O.Ws the war is over) But I think we both realize the futility of this loop.
However, I would like to hear your views on what scholarly source you find most of interest, and I will investigate the next time I'm near a bookstore. It would be interesting to read a politcally opposite view from my own. If you wish to do the same, I recommend 'Understanding Power' by Chomsky. It covers a whole load of interesting subjects, and while I disagree with a number of points, his sources are on the whole reasonable, and his views are something you are never going to get from the mainstream media.
I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this reply (It's nearly midnight, and I've just come back from a nice beer sampling session with some mates at the local pub and am slightly drunk), but anyway...
"Do you honestly say that you don't see any significant difference between the North Koreans kidnapping civilians from Japan to be forced to teach their spies versus prisoners captured on the battlefield while under arms?" No... See the following.
You do realize that under the law of war, ordinary prisoners can be held until the end of hostilities?
That would be nice if the US recognised the group as prisoners of war. Instead they coined the term 'Illegal combatants', basically negating all rights under the Geneva convention, including the right to an attorney. With the latest prisoner 'scandals' the US military has been involved in, I also somehow doubt they are following some of the other guidelines laid down by the Geneva convention, like not torturing prisoners.
And the nonsense about the Unicef report? You don't suppose that Saddams diversion of the Oil for Food money into billions of dollars in bribes and purchases of banned materials had anything to do with that, do you? And how many of Saddams palaces were built after 1991? The fact is that it was Saddam that is ultimately responsible for the harsh conditions the Iraqi people faced. When faced with the choice between buying food and medicine or missile parts, Saddam chose missile parts.
Good thing we found those missle parts, they could be dangerous. I also like the large amount of evidence I could find backing this claim up. Oh, and I prefer the evidence given by the Unicef report to the bulshit propoganda as why Saddam is completely at fault for the starvation. I would appreciate if you replied with the source of these facts.
I find the moral authority that you attribute to the UN somewhat amusing, given the Libya is the chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and a the UN has some... strange priorities. The way it treats Israel, for example seems uterly pointless and grossly disproportionate.
Libya does not have veto powers. Funnily enough, here are a list of some of the resolutions the United States has vetoed in the last while (Since 2001) A small part of the most veto's in the UN) Now if you have no idea what I'm talking about, these are some of the resolutions the US voted against, and hence destroyed with Veto.
-To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
-Condemns Israel for acts of terror against civilians in the occupied territories.
-To set up the International Criminal Court.
-To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
-Condemns the killing of UK worker for the United Nations by Israeli forces. Condemns the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse.
-Condemns a decision by the Israeli parliament to "remove" the elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat.
-Condemns the building of a wall by Israel on Palestinian land.
-To end the USA's 40 year embargo of Cuba.
-Condemns the assassination of Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.
-Condemns the Israeli incursion and killings in Gaza.
As for the Israeli issue, I'll leave that for another time. In short, my thoughts on the subject is that the extermination and marginalisation of an entire race of people is contrary to basic natrual justice. Furthermore, an equitable solution can never be reached with current Israeli policies on the region.
The US is hardly trying to remake the world in its image.
Lets take some of the many counter examples of the United states puting Business interests ahead of humanitarian ones.
-Nicaragua
-Haiti
-Panama
-Iran
etc...
Afghanistan hosted and protected the terrorists who attacked the United States in a act of war. The US and NATO allies when into Afghanistan to help them rebuild. The UN is aiding the political process with fr
"Fuck those bastards. We should nuke them"
This is the dumb gungho shit I get pissed off about.
Lets compare with some facts with the recent history of the United States.
"Check out how they blew up Korean Airlines 858"
Google for: USS Vincennes. On the 4th 1988 over 290 passengers of an Iranian passenger flight were killed by the US Navy.
"Or how they kidnapped Japanese civlians."
Compare with the indefinate holding without trial of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
"Or how they starve their own population"
Compare with the 1999 Unicef report stating an estimated 1/2 million Iraqi children were killed by sanctions implemented after the first gulf war. (I love how the rights new moral justification for the war in Iraq is on humanatarian grounds. I must have missed the moral outrage when this report came out in 99)
"Or even how they test biochemical weapons on whole families - children and all: "The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth to mouth breathing."
Lets compare with the United States's pardoning and relocation of War criminals from Japan (who tested Chemical weapons on Ethnic Chinese and prisoners of war) after the second world war to futher develop their own Chemical weapons program.
"Of all the evil regimes to be apologetic for, North Korea is about as bad as it gets. Anyone who defends them is objectively defending evil."
This is pretty much the comment that made me reply. There is alot of evil in the world, alot of it directly created by the United States, (Look at Nicaragua as a very good example of this, and the subsequent world court ruling against the U.S.) and alot of it created by places like North Korea.
Do I think what the North Koreans do is moraly wrong and evil? Yes. Do I think it is more inherintly evil than the U.S.? Yes. Which one is more dangerous to world peace? Without a doubt it is currently the United States. The United States is the worlds only remaining superpower, and has shown a willingness to try and shape the world in its own image.
When the United States follows its own ideals, it can become the policeman of the world. Until then, I believe getting a mandate first from the rest of the world http://www.un.org/ may be a wise course of action. It is not a matter of letting the U.N. "protect" the United States.(By all means go and build a aircraft laser platform)
It is the allowance, that before you go and invade another country, the majority of the world sees some justification for it first.
Clarification:
The exit poll information on thier website showed a small lead for Bush in Male voters (51%), and a larger lead for Female voters (FOR KERRY) (54%) (amongst a sample size of 1900 odd voters)
I was studing CNN's exit poll information break down for Florida last night with a group of work collegues, trying to compare it with what was going on with the live results. (Around 3pm local time in New Zealand so around 8pm E.T.)
The exit poll information on thier website showed a small lead for Bush in Male voters (51%), and a larger lead for Female voters (54%) (amongst a sample size of 1900 odd voters)
The current information on their website has been changed.
It is possible that the full sample has been added to their website. The alternative is not an acceptable for a media outlet.
Although, after having watched CNN's wrap up coverage, discussing the dangers of exit poll information being put on the internet on 'those Blog sites' oblivious to the fact it was on theirs. I believe CNN in general may just be incompetent not liars.
On a related note, from memory, exit polls are not legal in New Zealand (and may not be in a few countries) due to the reason that reporting any data from exit polls may infact change the result of an election (Reporting leads to one candidate may encourage apathy in their constituency for the rest of the day)
Slashdot Mirror
I happen to work for a software company with Vista in the name... 'Vista Entertainment Solutions' and our product is marketed as 'Vista'. It has been since 1995.
http://www.vista.co.nz/
I'm not sure as to the extent this will affect us.
That's hilarious. All you have to do to get a +5 around here is spew some random fact about how America is teh eVal (not that there aren't many valid criticisms).
So your point is?
but your the tone of post pisses me off so much that I really don't give a shit about the valid points you made.
Christ, you get annoyed by *America Bashing*, but conveniently forget that these views do not come from a void.
The western hemisphere didn't get up one day and decide that it needed to spend its time posting on slashdot saying 'America is te Sux0r'. It's not like we sit here all day wondering how our lives are incomplete unless we piss of some Americans.
Rather if people in *other* countries have enough feeling on American policies, even if they are blunt and to the point (BTW Well done grandparent) you may wonder why they have enough feeling on the subject to spend 20 minutes of the day writing something like that. And it's not for the usual crap you are spoonfed about *hating our freedoms*.
BTW - where do you come from? I'm sure it's a perfect place without problems of it's own.
I'm sure it isn't, but look at it this way. Let's say the poster comes from New Zealand. What foriegn policy of this country affects you, or world geopolitical events? Compare with current American empire building, how does that affect the poster? I would be surprised if you knew of a policy of the former, while the latter drastically affects world stability. Does that mean that if you really don't care about the formers policies, healthy debate about the latter should be outlawed?
And before you come back with the general argument that since America is the only remaining superpower, hence they will annoy other countries no matter the policy, just remember that smaller countries have affected world events by misguided policies (Afganastans harbouring of terrorists for example, it isn't like that wasn't a large talking point and discussion in America for a very long time)
Yes, there are alot of restrictions to moving here, but they are simalar to most countries. We go off a points system, and you get points for things like the industry you are in,education, your age, your financial situation etc...
Although with the changes in the exchange rate lately, you would have been far better off moving here a couple of years back.
"They try hard to keep the few jobs they have for their citizens". I'm actually surprised by this comment, our IT industry is doing quite well at the moment. From the feedback I got talking to people at a conference in the States a couple of months back, our IT outlook looks cheery in comparison.
Anyway, My $.02. If you actually wanted an answer to the question.
The U.S. was mid table for both:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/47/34011082.xls
It turns out your 'Predictions'... are infact some of the enhancements being released in Visual Studio 2005 Team Edition.
By the way I couldn't let this one go: "President Bush issued Saddam a final ultimatum [whitehouse.gov], which he ignored." Hitler did the same thing to Poland.
But it is nice to have a debate with someone, who's views I disagree with strongly and is articulate enough to convey them.
I had quite a few of the same views as you for a very long time. That infact the United States is a 'Western Big Brother' if you like. Growing up in New Zealand (Not Australia, but close), I spent much time writing up the military tactics involved in the first Gulf war for school assignments, and basically reading all I could on the great triumph s of the US, UK and NZ militaries over the last 50 years, reading the major news outlets and first hand accounts by soldiers etc...
Then I started reading some alternate sources for scholarly sake, things so far left by American standards that they might as well come back around the other side. (Things like Pilger and Chomsky for example)
These sort of books see conflict as the result not of limited strategic failure, or 'evildoers'. Rather they see them as the result of many years of complex factors, alot of which revolve around the placement and propping up of regimes for the purposes of profiteering.
Interesting side note, and something I've always wanted to talk to with an American of opposite views (I've only met people from the US with similar views): By my best calculations the US Democrat party is around where our furthest right parties are, any party that advocates non free healthcare and lack of state support for unemployment after a two year period (although out IT sector is pretty strong at the moment) as extreme right wing, bordering on dangerous. Which I suppose brings up the bigger question of why two countries with similar backgrounds, ethnic makeups and the same military conflicts are so different politically on a number of isses? The other common question I hear is: Why is liberal a dirty word in the United States?
Sorry, got sidetracked. Ignore the last if you like
Of all your comments, I am quite disturbed by your comments re Israel. It's quite clear that any solution in the middle east will have to involve the creation of a palestinian state in some form or another. Looking back at the history from when the Jewish state was created after the second world war in Palestine through the ever widening Israeli borders, I am not sure if Israel wants an equitable solution. I mean some of the stuff that goes on is straight out of the South African Apartheid handbook. Is Israel under threat more than the 'Arabs'? Yes. Is it under more threat than the Palestinians. No. What are the alternatives? Destruction is Israel? Destruction of Palestine? or perhaps a solution that would be acceptable to both sides involving some sort of 'Nationhood' for the palestinians? Is this a high price for peace for Israel?
I would start addressing alot of the other issues here, comparing the cases of misleading of the public on Fox News vs al jazeera, the 'isolated' case of the shooting of an unarmed and injured man in Iraq today (How dumb do you have to be to do it with a camera in the room), and the definition of when a war is 'over' (surely If the Afganis are held as P.O.Ws the war is over) But I think we both realize the futility of this loop.
However, I would like to hear your views on what scholarly source you find most of interest, and I will investigate the next time I'm near a bookstore. It would be interesting to read a politcally opposite view from my own. If you wish to do the same, I recommend 'Understanding Power' by Chomsky. It covers a whole load of interesting subjects, and while I disagree with a number of points, his sources are on the whole reasonable, and his views are something you are never going to get from the mainstream media.
Anyways, I better get some work done.
Until next time, Cheers
John
"Do you honestly say that you don't see any significant difference between the North Koreans kidnapping civilians from Japan to be forced to teach their spies versus prisoners captured on the battlefield while under arms?" No... See the following.
You do realize that under the law of war, ordinary prisoners can be held until the end of hostilities?
That would be nice if the US recognised the group as prisoners of war. Instead they coined the term 'Illegal combatants', basically negating all rights under the Geneva convention, including the right to an attorney. With the latest prisoner 'scandals' the US military has been involved in, I also somehow doubt they are following some of the other guidelines laid down by the Geneva convention, like not torturing prisoners.
And the nonsense about the Unicef report? You don't suppose that Saddams diversion of the Oil for Food money into billions of dollars in bribes and purchases of banned materials had anything to do with that, do you? And how many of Saddams palaces were built after 1991? The fact is that it was Saddam that is ultimately responsible for the harsh conditions the Iraqi people faced. When faced with the choice between buying food and medicine or missile parts, Saddam chose missile parts.
Good thing we found those missle parts, they could be dangerous. I also like the large amount of evidence I could find backing this claim up. Oh, and I prefer the evidence given by the Unicef report to the bulshit propoganda as why Saddam is completely at fault for the starvation. I would appreciate if you replied with the source of these facts.
I find the moral authority that you attribute to the UN somewhat amusing, given the Libya is the chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and a the UN has some... strange priorities. The way it treats Israel, for example seems uterly pointless and grossly disproportionate.
Libya does not have veto powers. Funnily enough, here are a list of some of the resolutions the United States has vetoed in the last while (Since 2001) A small part of the most veto's in the UN) Now if you have no idea what I'm talking about, these are some of the resolutions the US voted against, and hence destroyed with Veto.
-To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
-Condemns Israel for acts of terror against civilians in the occupied territories.
-To set up the International Criminal Court.
-To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
-Condemns the killing of UK worker for the United Nations by Israeli forces. Condemns the destruction of the World Food Programme warehouse.
-Condemns a decision by the Israeli parliament to "remove" the elected Palestinian president, Yasser Arafat.
-Condemns the building of a wall by Israel on Palestinian land.
-To end the USA's 40 year embargo of Cuba.
-Condemns the assassination of Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.
-Condemns the Israeli incursion and killings in Gaza.
As for the Israeli issue, I'll leave that for another time. In short, my thoughts on the subject is that the extermination and marginalisation of an entire race of people is contrary to basic natrual justice. Furthermore, an equitable solution can never be reached with current Israeli policies on the region.
The US is hardly trying to remake the world in its image. Lets take some of the many counter examples of the United states puting Business interests ahead of humanitarian ones.
-Nicaragua
-Haiti
-Panama
-Iran
etc...
Afghanistan hosted and protected the terrorists who attacked the United States in a act of war. The US and NATO allies when into Afghanistan to help them rebuild. The UN is aiding the political process with fr
Lets compare with some facts with the recent history of the United States.
"Check out how they blew up Korean Airlines 858"
Google for: USS Vincennes. On the 4th 1988 over 290 passengers of an Iranian passenger flight were killed by the US Navy.
"Or how they kidnapped Japanese civlians." Compare with the indefinate holding without trial of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
"Or how they starve their own population" Compare with the 1999 Unicef report stating an estimated 1/2 million Iraqi children were killed by sanctions implemented after the first gulf war. (I love how the rights new moral justification for the war in Iraq is on humanatarian grounds. I must have missed the moral outrage when this report came out in 99)
"Or even how they test biochemical weapons on whole families - children and all: "The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth to mouth breathing." Lets compare with the United States's pardoning and relocation of War criminals from Japan (who tested Chemical weapons on Ethnic Chinese and prisoners of war) after the second world war to futher develop their own Chemical weapons program.
"Of all the evil regimes to be apologetic for, North Korea is about as bad as it gets. Anyone who defends them is objectively defending evil."
This is pretty much the comment that made me reply. There is alot of evil in the world, alot of it directly created by the United States, (Look at Nicaragua as a very good example of this, and the subsequent world court ruling against the U.S.) and alot of it created by places like North Korea.
Do I think what the North Koreans do is moraly wrong and evil? Yes. Do I think it is more inherintly evil than the U.S.? Yes. Which one is more dangerous to world peace? Without a doubt it is currently the United States. The United States is the worlds only remaining superpower, and has shown a willingness to try and shape the world in its own image.
When the United States follows its own ideals, it can become the policeman of the world. Until then, I believe getting a mandate first from the rest of the world http://www.un.org/ may be a wise course of action. It is not a matter of letting the U.N. "protect" the United States.(By all means go and build a aircraft laser platform)
It is the allowance, that before you go and invade another country, the majority of the world sees some justification for it first.
Clarification: The exit poll information on thier website showed a small lead for Bush in Male voters (51%), and a larger lead for Female voters (FOR KERRY) (54%) (amongst a sample size of 1900 odd voters)
Ok. I call bullshit.
I was studing CNN's exit poll information break down for Florida last night with a group of work collegues, trying to compare it with what was going on with the live results. (Around 3pm local time in New Zealand so around 8pm E.T.)
The exit poll information on thier website showed a small lead for Bush in Male voters (51%), and a larger lead for Female voters (54%) (amongst a sample size of 1900 odd voters)
The current information on their website has been changed.
It is possible that the full sample has been added to their website. The alternative is not an acceptable for a media outlet.
Although, after having watched CNN's wrap up coverage, discussing the dangers of exit poll information being put on the internet on 'those Blog sites' oblivious to the fact it was on theirs. I believe CNN in general may just be incompetent not liars.
On a related note, from memory, exit polls are not legal in New Zealand (and may not be in a few countries) due to the reason that reporting any data from exit polls may infact change the result of an election (Reporting leads to one candidate may encourage apathy in their constituency for the rest of the day)
Anyways, My $.02