You're right about war wasting resources but wrong about us being worse off after Iraq II.
The war preserved some sense of authority for the multinational level of government (ironically, without the UN). When Saddam expelled the weapons inspectors in 1998 and the UN failed to act, the effectiveness entire system was put into jeopardy. Iraq II has restored that, if only partially. Iran and North Korea, while defiant, still play the game and haven't (permanently) expelled their weapons inspectors.
A second "win" in the war was continued US access to Iraq's oil resources. A lot of the world's oil wealth is in increasingly hostile hands like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. The current government in Iraq is much more open to American investment than the last. Whether or not it is "right", our economy demands oil and reliable oil demands friendly regimes and stable partnerships.
A third "win" in the war is diminished Chinese and Russian influence in the region. Russia already controls a great deal of Europe's carbon wealth, either directly or via pipelines. It would not benefit the US or Europe for Iraq's oil to come under the control of Russia. China's record of supporting governments like those in Sudan and North Korea make it an equally undesirable actor in the arena.
As to the assertion that the US's recent actions make people hate the US: they already hated us. On 9/11, on Slashdot, an amazing amount of comments were about how the deserved what it got for its foreign policies. People who spout this rhetoric prescribe to the notion that abuse can be deserved -- as though a battered wife deserves to be hit so she can learn.
When people oversimplify a situation by blaming a particular individual or group for the problem, they reveal a basic lack of understanding.
Your blind quest to vilify Bush is, at best, foolish.
Bush is no more to blame for supporting the banks than Obama, or McCain, or pretty much anybody in Congress. Both parties signed off on the bank bailout.
Even if I were to assume there was a pellet of intelligence in your comment, what solution do you propose, abolish banks?
I agree with the original post, MS's language designers seem more interested in implementing the "latest and greatest" and tend to neglect those things programmers need.
To start, C# should have been a progressive enhancement to C++, not a breaking rewrite. That way my years of C++ coding could be easily compiled on to the.NET framework. C++/CLI is not a solution since you can't mix native and managed objects.
Second, I'd like to see existing features smoothed out. Static objects in C# are great as Singletons, but you still can't inherit them.
The generic collections are great, but there is no partial specialization. The enumerators are great, but there is no easy way to foreach in reverse.
LINQ is OK, but I'd rather be able to call my stored procedures as native functions.
I think we're so trained to move to the latest language or framework we forget that means torching years of experience and mountains of existing code.
Republicans and Democrats are both to blame, they've both signed onto this bill.
However, the same people that are pissed Bush lied and manipulated us into the Iraq war are letting Bush lie and manipulate us into Socialism (I'm looking at you Obama).
Once the government owns 700 billion in bad mortgages they face to choices:
1. Become the bank and kick families to the curb. 2. Hold on to the bad mortgages, let the families stay in their homes, and wait for the $700 billion to run out. Then ask for more.
I'm not surprised to hear the major networks in a panic and beating us over the head to support this bailout. But, I was terrified to see normally sane outlets in the same panic (namely NPR, The Economist, and BBC).
You're right though. No amount of panic, no amount of dollars is going to fix the underlying demographics: a teacher/firefighter/retail manager cannot afford a half million dollar house.
There is plenty of capital available in the world, just not in the West. Ironically, if we proceed with the bailout, we will finance it by selling US Treasury bonds to the Middle East and Asia. They will become the ultimate profit makers, while the West digs itself a little deeper in debt.
Instead of selling debt to the East to save ailing Western companies, we should be selling the ailing companies. Those who claim that the lack regulation is the root of this problem , forget that regulation keeps the East from investing in Western companies. Dubia Port Authority.
No, I'm honestly suggesting that countries that want to influence American power should become a US state. I'm also saying that the US model would work much better than the UN model if scaled up to a global level.
It is not a popular idea. But, if people really want change, it is a practical idea. The alternative is to sit around and whine about US policies without affecting them.
It doesn't seem to me like a push towards world government is a concentration of power across the DIME, as you put it. Multiple levels of government can coexist independently, especially in the American-style federation. And, those levels can continue to function when they are in opposition (such as California's medical marijuana laws in defiance of Federal drug laws).
I agree that an absolutely powerful world government would be absolutely corrupt -- but I don't think anyone is suggesting that solution (Islamists aside). The UN, for example, has very little power. When governments don't agree with UN resolutions they don't have to follow them (Iraq until 2003, Iran now, North Korea, Sudan, etc). I would argue that the lack of power at a world level causes war.
The failure of the UN is in its structure. It is an oligarchy, not a federation, republic, or democracy. The 5 WWII Allies hold the rest of the world hostage for their own interests. Personal interests are a threat to liberty.
On the other hand, the American federation works extremely well and has withstood the test of time and scale better than any comparable system. I see no reason why, if a country wants to influence American policy, it shouldn't join the federation. They trade a measure (not all) of sovereignty for the right to affect the overall system. Change from within.
Really though, the Europeans see themselves as the center of history. They would no sooner join the US federation than ratify the EU's constitution. Submitting to any higher level of government would invalidate the arrogant attitude of global relevance. Belgium is no more relevant on the world scene than California. But, to admit that would be admitting the end of Charlemagne.
One final note, Mexico would probably be much better off today had they too become part of the union 150 years ago. California and Texas are doing pretty well, they have a massive say in American politics (Bush is from Texas, after all), and the Mexicans who live in the US, on average, enjoy a higher standard of living than those still in Mexico.
So why not do it? Any country can petition the US to become a US territory and then a US state. Texas, for example, was at one time the Country of Texas.
Give me a fucking break. As you sit on your fat ass, posting your self indulgent opinions onto the Internet, and not doing any productive work, a billion people around the world are malnourished.
Disclaimer, I worked at a registrar some years ago, not NSI, one of their competitors. As such, I would never advocate anyone scripting lookup information. However, I did have some observations about the approach.
It may not cost them any money for the domain, but the whole process costs some pennies. There are bandwidth costs, obviously. Not just to the user doing the lookup but between the registrar and their data centers, and the central registry. Harddisk costs for data, logs, analysis, etc.
A larger cost would be in their database. NS only has ~6.6 million domains under registry. Adding a few hundred thousand domains (even for a few days) could cause some serious indexing and performance issues.
With all these scripted domains coming in it will mess up any advertising models they have setup. Also, if they haven't been very, very careful, you could trick them into buying the domain by doing a recheck every couple of days. Waiting until the very last second to check the name again may be more than their system is setup to handle.
Like I've said please don't script them. Knowledge should never be used to maintain the balance of power. Those in authority always have your best interests at heart. When those who love you appear to abuse you it is for your own good. Don't fight the man. Etc, etc, etc.
Forget these other retards. Your hardware idea is one of the best I've ever heard.
Write it out in VHDL, get an FPGA, and take the proof of concept to someone with money. Any web server admin with half a brain can see why having your TCP/IP stack in hardware is preferential to software, even if it does replace the ethernet card.
To paraphrase: The founding fathers were not terrorists because they attempted to work within the existing legal frameworks before declaring independence (and going violent). Today's terrorists go to violence first, never to the legal pathways.
Also, its important to note that in 1776 the UN didn't exist. Nor did the WTO or the International Criminal Court, or the Geneva Conventions. The founding fathers had very few options to deal with their grievances. Today there are international organization that can mediate almost any type of international dispute. Still, they choose violence first -- not last.
Of course in this day and age - if you disagree with the administration - you're labeled unpatriotic or worse.
Fuck George Bush. If he wants to send me to Guantamo because he has tiny penis, go for it. Try to say something similar in Iran.
You're right, I'm not new here. I've spent the last 6 years watching this illogical Anti-American rhetoric build and build. Its gotten to the point where I'm concerned my generation has lost the forest for the trees. What's interesting to me is the way my generation has reacted. Our parents organized peace rallies, created some awesome music, and probably pulled society along about 100 years in a decade. For some reason our generation just gets angry and bitches that their poster is getting taken down. I don't understand what happened.
First the North Korean test actually demonstrated that they can't even make a gun type bomb.
So what? Its a matter of time now. Giving them plans to missiles will only speed that process.
Yes the Iranian and Saudi governments are theocracies. Funny though, how they seemed to be allowing more and more progressive thought, well right up to the Iraq invasion that is. Perhaps we should stop fueling their anti-western bias.
Fucking awesome argument. Seriously, no sarcasm. I've gotten probably 50 replies and you're the only one with the insight to say this so far.
I've given this topic a ton of thought and I'm curious to see what you think:
- There is a stellar 15 page report on Iran in last week's Economist. They too note that there was a cooling off, a liberalization of Iran taking place up and through 2003. But, by 2005 the liberal Khatami was voted out for apocalyptic Ahmadinejad. However, they also note that the real power in Iran is invested in Ayatollah Khomeini, who was in power before and after our invasion. That being said, my impression is that they were allowing limited freedom with no real political or religious freedom. So long as Iran remains and autocratic theocracy there can't be much real liberalization. Ayatollah Khomeini did not ever intend to liberalize things to point he could be replaced.
- After the war in Iraq liberalization did happen in a number of other countries in the region. Lebanon saw the Cedar Revolution, where the Syrians where finally pushed after two decades of occupation. Egypt saw its first democratic political elections. Elections expanded in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Libya abandoned its illicit weapons programs and is now a responsible player on the world's stage. While Iran may have closed off, the war had the opposite affect in a number of other countries.
- There was (obviously) a huge anti-Western sentiment throughout the world before Iraq, before even 9/11. I remember many people complaining (before 9/11) that the US was NOT active enough in the world. There was even a movie (The Siege) where the terrorist lashes the US for NOT invading Iraq and NOT deposing Saddam Hussein. Even here on Slashdot, there were many many people who said the United States deserved 9/11 because of our foreign policy. It seems to me like the US is scapegoated as convenient target. The world hated us before Iraq and they hated us before 9/11. It seems foolish to me to base our actions on the opinions of this fickle (and hateful) crowd.
As for the rest of your post, I disagree. Ignoring Kim Jong-Ill and Ahmadinejad will not solve the problem. The Iranians have a history of provoking to cause the external chaos their internal forces need to survive. The recent kidnapping of British soldiers a perfect example.
We are making some progress in Iran through sanctions. What we really need is the rest of the world (I'm looking at you China and Russia) to get on board and stop doing business with Iran. I think the same exact thing can be said about North Korea.
That being said, it seems to me like the US is doing everything in its power to stop these forces. The real action needs to come from the rest of the world.
As I've said before, I think the poster thing is going overboard.
But I also think this knee-jerk reaction to everything the government does is paranoid. I would bet that you and I share many of the same values: freedom of speech, freedom of political organization, freedom to do whatever the hell we want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
However, when we get so focussed on the trees we forget the forest. I think what we all want is a return to the pre-9/11 freedoms we used to enjoy. The poster thing is minuscule compared to the horrible things our country has done over the last 6 years. Whereas most people can line up behind you and support reinstating Habeaus Corpus, a lot of people aren't going to agree with you on this one. If you really want a change we have to work within the system, co-opt the moderates who don't see everything the government does as a conspiracy, and build a voting block that cherishes freedom.
Picking such a small item to focus turns those moderates off to your whole point of view. You may win the battle, but without 51% of voting American, you'll lose the war.
However, we have to prioritize. This isn't as important as (still open) Guantanamo bay. It isn't as important as the ongoing domestic wiretapping program. It isn't as important as the drug czar calling pot-heads terrorists.
By getting all worked about every little thing the government does (and this is tiny in comparison) you simply turn off moderates. Whether or not you agree with the majority of American opinion, we still have to work with it. I'm fiercely Libertarian, but even I can see where you guys are going overboard.
Too me, the most affective thing anyone here can do is take bit sized pieces out of the problem.
- Do everything in your power to oppose the presidency of Mitt Romney. He has advocated the doubling of Guantanamo Bay. - Consider supporting John McCain. As a prisoner of war himself, I guarantee he will not stand for this oppressive bullshit. - Disagree with those who defend Iran, North Korea, and al-Qaeda. They aren't responsible actors and world's stage and they're giving the idiots here ample reason to freak out. The book '1984' (which I adore as a pinnacle of modern thought) illustrates perfectly how oppressive regimes us fear to entrench their own power.
Too me, it is splitting hairs as both interpretations threaten the existence/right to exist of Israel. Perhaps it is acceptable, to you, to make such threats. I wonder how you feel about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's willingness to sacrifice half of Iran to destroy Israel?
Parhaps you read too much propaganda and are absolutely completely clueless as to how the real world looks:)
Attach ad hominem. Asshole =)
USA supported various groups in southern America that did things like throw over elected governments, torture and dissapear people who didn't agree with them, kill and loot randomly and what not.
No one is arguing that. In fact, it seems like your changing the subject as your previous arguments where mostly fallacy and unsupported assertions. If you want to have a conversation about the US's actions during the Cold War that's an entirely different subject with its own gray areas.
As I read the rest of your post I am struck by a realization: You honestly believe (along with many in today's world) that the US is somehow just as bad as Iran. I find your talk about propaganda interesting, because I can't see arriving at this conclusion unless you the buy the Iranian propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
It may be falling on deaf ears, but let me explain why the United States is nowhere near Iran, no matter the US's actions.
1. A mostly free media. Say what you want about 'propaganda', in the US any whack-job with an opinion can express it. Just look at me. The only reason we know about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret CIA prisons, torture, Iran Contra, the Americas, etc, is because of a mostly free media. While you see those things as failures of the US, I see the fact that they were revealed as the system working. Evil people WILL get into power and WILL make mistakes. There MUST be a system that can correct for that.
You seem to like the Cold War; I'll point to Stalin's Gulags as a perfect example. They weren't revealed by a media. There wasn't a free media in Russia. The entirety of Soviet society was unaware their comrades were being shipped to their deaths in Siberia. If it weren't for the unilateral actions of Soviet President Kruschev, those crimes against humanity may not have been revealed.
The little that does leak out of Iran paints a picture of a society destroyed by years of theocratic rule. Women are subject to honor killings. Art, music, and literature are officially suppressed. Unemployment stands at 25%. The economy is crumbling due to criminal mismanagement.
During the previous president's rule (Khatami) dozens of independent newspapers were opened. However, since President Ahmadinejad rose to power most have been closed on "technicalities". Peaceful demonstrations are not allowed. Just this March police beat hundreds of its civilians for gathering to support International Women's Day.
2. The separation of church and state. How much different would things be if it were the Mormon States of America, or the Catholic Republic of the United States? Religion plays a tremendous role in American politics, but at least it isn't officially sanctioned.
Your assertion that Doing the later would actually
I'm intrigued by your thesis, but it lacks support. For one, simply calling people facists and cowards is an attack ad hominem. Its a fallacy and does little but (temporarily) distract the reader from the fact that your argument contains no substance, no support.
Not that I'm saying you're wrong. You may be completely right about this being a political farce. But, just because someone at NASA knows Bush does not automatically make it a conspiracy. What is needed is more fact and less presumption. I too am disillusioned with America post 9/11. But I'm not about to allow that anger and disappointment cloud my vision and start labeling everything as a conspiracy. That would be paranoid.
Iran is a tangible enemy because they have threatened direct military action:
Threaten me with violence, you won't have to wait until there is direct action before I treat you like an enemy. You talk about diplomacy, yet the country you seem to love shuns diplomacy at every turn. Iran continuously subverts international law and order. How about this UN directive, passed over a year ago, yet still ignored by Iran:
This would be true if we had ever formally declared war on them. We are not at war with them, never have been.
Hahaha. Man, oh, man. I personally lost two family members in the Korean war, so its hard for me to take your statement that we have never been at war seriously.
So you think it's reasonable in a free and just society for armed men to go into a private company's offices, rip publically available posters of 40+ year old technology off the walls and destroy them in the name of national security?
No, actually I said that I doubt it would do any good at all. I doubt you could put much useful on a piece of paper that size. Hopefully, along with the posters, they classified the pieces of information that would be useful. Don't be fooled into thinking that just because its old it isn't useful. In fact, I remember a conversation a few years back about scrapping the space shuttle and going back to the Saturn design because it worked so well.
I take issue with the permeating hatred for the US and its government and everything it does. I can't understand how normally intelligent people can be so quick to categorize everything as evil or a conspiracy. Sometimes people are just doing their job, or the best they can. Personally, I don't see what freedom is getting taken away. There are so many worse things going on this world than you losing your stupid poster.
It will probably take decades to clean up the mess that Bush is making of the U.S.
Probably. But bitching about your poster getting taken away is so unproductive in helping clean up that mess. Personally, I find the fact that habeus corpus has been suspended as way more troubling. I'm concerned by the fact the Russia executes journalists that speak out against the government and poisons people with Polonium. I'm horrified that an American could ever treat someone as inhumanely as those pictures from Abu Ghraib. I guess that just me and my messed up priorities. Lets get back to this poster thing.
the United States isn't evil, just a HUGE hypocrite when it comes to international nuclear policy.
For the most part the United States abides by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, as do most nations. I would define hypocritical as saying one thing but doing another. Much like the North Koreans said they would shutdown their nuclear program in 1994, but they did the opposite.
Hypocritical would be embracing the portions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty that suits you and disregarding the rest. Much like North Korea (and now Iran) enrich(ed) Uranium while still under the NPT but withdrew when there was enough material to make a bomb.
I say that the United States is non-hypocritical "for the most" part only because of our recent endorsement of India as a nuclear power. But, personally, I'm not as worried about a moderate democracy like India having the bomb. What worries me are nuclear armed Mullahs bent on bringing the word of God to the infidels with a sword. What worries me are crazy dictators like Kim Jong Il. People who think they are God over a crumbling country and would think nothing of bringing the world down with them.
Still, if I remember correctly, the deal with India has not been fully approved. If you are so very concerned about the US's hypocrisy, then I would recommend writing your congressman and expressing your concern about the message we are sending to the world by transferring light water reactors to India. Or, next time you post you can use it as an example. Your welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Without the defense industry there would be a lot less well paying engineering jobs.
You're right about war wasting resources but wrong about us being worse off after Iraq II.
The war preserved some sense of authority for the multinational level of government (ironically, without the UN). When Saddam expelled the weapons inspectors in 1998 and the UN failed to act, the effectiveness entire system was put into jeopardy. Iraq II has restored that, if only partially. Iran and North Korea, while defiant, still play the game and haven't (permanently) expelled their weapons inspectors.
A second "win" in the war was continued US access to Iraq's oil resources. A lot of the world's oil wealth is in increasingly hostile hands like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. The current government in Iraq is much more open to American investment than the last. Whether or not it is "right", our economy demands oil and reliable oil demands friendly regimes and stable partnerships.
A third "win" in the war is diminished Chinese and Russian influence in the region. Russia already controls a great deal of Europe's carbon wealth, either directly or via pipelines. It would not benefit the US or Europe for Iraq's oil to come under the control of Russia. China's record of supporting governments like those in Sudan and North Korea make it an equally undesirable actor in the arena.
As to the assertion that the US's recent actions make people hate the US: they already hated us. On 9/11, on Slashdot, an amazing amount of comments were about how the deserved what it got for its foreign policies. People who spout this rhetoric prescribe to the notion that abuse can be deserved -- as though a battered wife deserves to be hit so she can learn.
When people oversimplify a situation by blaming a particular individual or group for the problem, they reveal a basic lack of understanding.
Your blind quest to vilify Bush is, at best, foolish.
Bush is no more to blame for supporting the banks than Obama, or McCain, or pretty much anybody in Congress. Both parties signed off on the bank bailout.
Even if I were to assume there was a pellet of intelligence in your comment, what solution do you propose, abolish banks?
Capitalism isn't a zero sum game.
I agree with the original post, MS's language designers seem more interested in implementing the "latest and greatest" and tend to neglect those things programmers need.
To start, C# should have been a progressive enhancement to C++, not a breaking rewrite. That way my years of C++ coding could be easily compiled on to the .NET framework. C++/CLI is not a solution since you can't mix native and managed objects.
Second, I'd like to see existing features smoothed out. Static objects in C# are great as Singletons, but you still can't inherit them.
The generic collections are great, but there is no partial specialization. The enumerators are great, but there is no easy way to foreach in reverse.
LINQ is OK, but I'd rather be able to call my stored procedures as native functions.
I think we're so trained to move to the latest language or framework we forget that means torching years of experience and mountains of existing code.
Republicans and Democrats are both to blame, they've both signed onto this bill.
However, the same people that are pissed Bush lied and manipulated us into the Iraq war are letting Bush lie and manipulate us into Socialism (I'm looking at you Obama).
Once the government owns 700 billion in bad mortgages they face to choices:
1. Become the bank and kick families to the curb.
2. Hold on to the bad mortgages, let the families stay in their homes, and wait for the $700 billion to run out. Then ask for more.
Fantastic point.
I'm not surprised to hear the major networks in a panic and beating us over the head to support this bailout. But, I was terrified to see normally sane outlets in the same panic (namely NPR, The Economist, and BBC).
You're right though. No amount of panic, no amount of dollars is going to fix the underlying demographics: a teacher/firefighter/retail manager cannot afford a half million dollar house.
There is plenty of capital available in the world, just not in the West. Ironically, if we proceed with the bailout, we will finance it by selling US Treasury bonds to the Middle East and Asia. They will become the ultimate profit makers, while the West digs itself a little deeper in debt.
Instead of selling debt to the East to save ailing Western companies, we should be selling the ailing companies. Those who claim that the lack regulation is the root of this problem , forget that regulation keeps the East from investing in Western companies. Dubia Port Authority.
This whole thing sounds like something out of an Ayn Rand book.
When do we get the Equalization of Opportunity Bill?
Globalization? You mean economically, right?
No, I'm honestly suggesting that countries that want to influence American power should become a US state. I'm also saying that the US model would work much better than the UN model if scaled up to a global level.
It is not a popular idea. But, if people really want change, it is a practical idea. The alternative is to sit around and whine about US policies without affecting them.
It doesn't seem to me like a push towards world government is a concentration of power across the DIME, as you put it. Multiple levels of government can coexist independently, especially in the American-style federation. And, those levels can continue to function when they are in opposition (such as California's medical marijuana laws in defiance of Federal drug laws).
I agree that an absolutely powerful world government would be absolutely corrupt -- but I don't think anyone is suggesting that solution (Islamists aside). The UN, for example, has very little power. When governments don't agree with UN resolutions they don't have to follow them (Iraq until 2003, Iran now, North Korea, Sudan, etc). I would argue that the lack of power at a world level causes war.
The failure of the UN is in its structure. It is an oligarchy, not a federation, republic, or democracy. The 5 WWII Allies hold the rest of the world hostage for their own interests. Personal interests are a threat to liberty.
On the other hand, the American federation works extremely well and has withstood the test of time and scale better than any comparable system. I see no reason why, if a country wants to influence American policy, it shouldn't join the federation. They trade a measure (not all) of sovereignty for the right to affect the overall system. Change from within.
Really though, the Europeans see themselves as the center of history. They would no sooner join the US federation than ratify the EU's constitution. Submitting to any higher level of government would invalidate the arrogant attitude of global relevance. Belgium is no more relevant on the world scene than California. But, to admit that would be admitting the end of Charlemagne.
One final note, Mexico would probably be much better off today had they too become part of the union 150 years ago. California and Texas are doing pretty well, they have a massive say in American politics (Bush is from Texas, after all), and the Mexicans who live in the US, on average, enjoy a higher standard of living than those still in Mexico.
Europeans want to vote in US elections
So why not do it? Any country can petition the US to become a US territory and then a US state. Texas, for example, was at one time the Country of Texas.
Of course, then you have to pay US taxes.
Give me a fucking break. As you sit on your fat ass, posting your self indulgent opinions onto the Internet, and not doing any productive work, a billion people around the world are malnourished.
Shut the fuck up and let them eat.
Disclaimer, I worked at a registrar some years ago, not NSI, one of their competitors. As such, I would never advocate anyone scripting lookup information. However, I did have some observations about the approach.
It may not cost them any money for the domain, but the whole process costs some pennies. There are bandwidth costs, obviously. Not just to the user doing the lookup but between the registrar and their data centers, and the central registry. Harddisk costs for data, logs, analysis, etc.
A larger cost would be in their database. NS only has ~6.6 million domains under registry. Adding a few hundred thousand domains (even for a few days) could cause some serious indexing and performance issues.
With all these scripted domains coming in it will mess up any advertising models they have setup. Also, if they haven't been very, very careful, you could trick them into buying the domain by doing a recheck every couple of days. Waiting until the very last second to check the name again may be more than their system is setup to handle.
Like I've said please don't script them. Knowledge should never be used to maintain the balance of power. Those in authority always have your best interests at heart. When those who love you appear to abuse you it is for your own good. Don't fight the man. Etc, etc, etc.
Forget these other retards. Your hardware idea is one of the best I've ever heard.
Write it out in VHDL, get an FPGA, and take the proof of concept to someone with money. Any web server admin with half a brain can see why having your TCP/IP stack in hardware is preferential to software, even if it does replace the ethernet card.
Fantastic!!!
Did you read the rest of the comment?
To paraphrase: The founding fathers were not terrorists because they attempted to work within the existing legal frameworks before declaring independence (and going violent). Today's terrorists go to violence first, never to the legal pathways.
Also, its important to note that in 1776 the UN didn't exist. Nor did the WTO or the International Criminal Court, or the Geneva Conventions. The founding fathers had very few options to deal with their grievances. Today there are international organization that can mediate almost any type of international dispute. Still, they choose violence first -- not last.
Of course in this day and age - if you disagree with the administration - you're labeled unpatriotic or worse.
Fuck George Bush. If he wants to send me to Guantamo because he has tiny penis, go for it. Try to say something similar in Iran.
You're right, I'm not new here. I've spent the last 6 years watching this illogical Anti-American rhetoric build and build. Its gotten to the point where I'm concerned my generation has lost the forest for the trees. What's interesting to me is the way my generation has reacted. Our parents organized peace rallies, created some awesome music, and probably pulled society along about 100 years in a decade. For some reason our generation just gets angry and bitches that their poster is getting taken down. I don't understand what happened.
First the North Korean test actually demonstrated that they can't even make a gun type bomb.
So what? Its a matter of time now. Giving them plans to missiles will only speed that process.
Yes the Iranian and Saudi governments are theocracies. Funny though, how they seemed to be allowing more and more progressive thought, well right up to the Iraq invasion that is. Perhaps we should stop fueling their anti-western bias.
Fucking awesome argument. Seriously, no sarcasm. I've gotten probably 50 replies and you're the only one with the insight to say this so far.
I've given this topic a ton of thought and I'm curious to see what you think:
- There is a stellar 15 page report on Iran in last week's Economist. They too note that there was a cooling off, a liberalization of Iran taking place up and through 2003. But, by 2005 the liberal Khatami was voted out for apocalyptic Ahmadinejad. However, they also note that the real power in Iran is invested in Ayatollah Khomeini, who was in power before and after our invasion. That being said, my impression is that they were allowing limited freedom with no real political or religious freedom. So long as Iran remains and autocratic theocracy there can't be much real liberalization. Ayatollah Khomeini did not ever intend to liberalize things to point he could be replaced.
- After the war in Iraq liberalization did happen in a number of other countries in the region. Lebanon saw the Cedar Revolution, where the Syrians where finally pushed after two decades of occupation. Egypt saw its first democratic political elections. Elections expanded in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Libya abandoned its illicit weapons programs and is now a responsible player on the world's stage. While Iran may have closed off, the war had the opposite affect in a number of other countries.
- There was (obviously) a huge anti-Western sentiment throughout the world before Iraq, before even 9/11. I remember many people complaining (before 9/11) that the US was NOT active enough in the world. There was even a movie (The Siege) where the terrorist lashes the US for NOT invading Iraq and NOT deposing Saddam Hussein. Even here on Slashdot, there were many many people who said the United States deserved 9/11 because of our foreign policy. It seems to me like the US is scapegoated as convenient target. The world hated us before Iraq and they hated us before 9/11. It seems foolish to me to base our actions on the opinions of this fickle (and hateful) crowd.
As for the rest of your post, I disagree. Ignoring Kim Jong-Ill and Ahmadinejad will not solve the problem. The Iranians have a history of provoking to cause the external chaos their internal forces need to survive. The recent kidnapping of British soldiers a perfect example.
We are making some progress in Iran through sanctions. What we really need is the rest of the world (I'm looking at you China and Russia) to get on board and stop doing business with Iran. I think the same exact thing can be said about North Korea.
That being said, it seems to me like the US is doing everything in its power to stop these forces. The real action needs to come from the rest of the world.
As I've said before, I think the poster thing is going overboard.
But I also think this knee-jerk reaction to everything the government does is paranoid. I would bet that you and I share many of the same values: freedom of speech, freedom of political organization, freedom to do whatever the hell we want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
However, when we get so focussed on the trees we forget the forest. I think what we all want is a return to the pre-9/11 freedoms we used to enjoy. The poster thing is minuscule compared to the horrible things our country has done over the last 6 years. Whereas most people can line up behind you and support reinstating Habeaus Corpus, a lot of people aren't going to agree with you on this one. If you really want a change we have to work within the system, co-opt the moderates who don't see everything the government does as a conspiracy, and build a voting block that cherishes freedom.
Picking such a small item to focus turns those moderates off to your whole point of view. You may win the battle, but without 51% of voting American, you'll lose the war.
I understand and agree with your entire post.
However, we have to prioritize. This isn't as important as (still open) Guantanamo bay. It isn't as important as
the ongoing domestic wiretapping program. It isn't as important as the drug czar calling pot-heads terrorists.
By getting all worked about every little thing the government does (and this is tiny in comparison) you simply turn off moderates. Whether or not you agree with the majority of American opinion, we still have to work with it. I'm fiercely Libertarian, but even I can see where you guys are going overboard.
Too me, the most affective thing anyone here can do is take bit sized pieces out of the problem.
- Do everything in your power to oppose the presidency of Mitt Romney. He has advocated the doubling of Guantanamo Bay.
- Consider supporting John McCain. As a prisoner of war himself, I guarantee he will not stand for this oppressive bullshit.
- Disagree with those who defend Iran, North Korea, and al-Qaeda. They aren't responsible actors and world's stage and they're giving the idiots here ample reason to freak out. The book '1984' (which I adore as a pinnacle of modern thought) illustrates perfectly how oppressive regimes us fear to entrench their own power.
It is well known that that quote is a mistranslation, either deliberate or not.
:)
It's not well known. That is one political opinion. In fact, the European Union disagrees with your assertion:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id =2&ObjectID=10352469
Apparently the leaders of the United States (obviously), Russia, ex-Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan also disagree with your statement:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/622940
Too me, it is splitting hairs as both interpretations threaten the existence/right to exist of Israel. Perhaps it is acceptable, to you, to make such threats. I wonder how you feel about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's willingness to sacrifice half of Iran to destroy Israel?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689559/p osts
Parhaps you read too much propaganda and are absolutely completely clueless as to how the real world looks
Attach ad hominem. Asshole =)
USA supported various groups in southern America that did things like throw over elected governments, torture and dissapear people who didn't agree with them, kill and loot randomly and what not.
No one is arguing that. In fact, it seems like your changing the subject as your previous arguments where mostly fallacy and unsupported assertions. If you want to have a conversation about the US's actions during the Cold War that's an entirely different subject with its own gray areas.
As I read the rest of your post I am struck by a realization: You honestly believe (along with many in today's world) that the US is somehow just as bad as Iran. I find your talk about propaganda interesting, because I can't see arriving at this conclusion unless you the buy the Iranian propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
It may be falling on deaf ears, but let me explain why the United States is nowhere near Iran, no matter the US's actions.
1. A mostly free media. Say what you want about 'propaganda', in the US any whack-job with an opinion can express it. Just look at me. The only reason we know about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret CIA prisons, torture, Iran Contra, the Americas, etc, is because of a mostly free media. While you see those things as failures of the US, I see the fact that they were revealed as the system working. Evil people WILL get into power and WILL make mistakes. There MUST be a system that can correct for that.
You seem to like the Cold War; I'll point to Stalin's Gulags as a perfect example. They weren't revealed by a media. There wasn't a free media in Russia. The entirety of Soviet society was unaware their comrades were being shipped to their deaths in Siberia. If it weren't for the unilateral actions of Soviet President Kruschev, those crimes against humanity may not have been revealed.
The little that does leak out of Iran paints a picture of a society destroyed by years of theocratic rule. Women are subject to honor killings. Art, music, and literature are officially suppressed. Unemployment stands at 25%. The economy is crumbling due to criminal mismanagement.
During the previous president's rule (Khatami) dozens of independent newspapers were opened. However, since President Ahmadinejad rose to power most have been closed on "technicalities". Peaceful demonstrations are not allowed. Just this March police beat hundreds of its civilians for gathering to support International Women's Day.
2. The separation of church and state. How much different would things be if it were the Mormon States of America, or the Catholic Republic of the United States? Religion plays a tremendous role in American politics, but at least it isn't officially sanctioned.
Your assertion that Doing the later would actually
I'm intrigued by your thesis, but it lacks support. For one, simply calling people facists and cowards is an attack ad hominem. Its a fallacy and does little but (temporarily) distract the reader from the fact that your argument contains no substance, no support.
Not that I'm saying you're wrong. You may be completely right about this being a political farce. But, just because someone at NASA knows Bush does not automatically make it a conspiracy. What is needed is more fact and less presumption. I too am disillusioned with America post 9/11. But I'm not about to allow that anger and disappointment cloud my vision and start labeling everything as a conspiracy. That would be paranoid.
I already do all of the above and more.
. htm
Great. Go get a cookie.
Iran is a tangible enemy because they have threatened direct military action:
Threaten me with violence, you won't have to wait until there is direct action before I treat you like an enemy. You talk about diplomacy, yet the country you seem to love shuns diplomacy at every turn. Iran continuously subverts international law and order. How about this UN directive, passed over a year ago, yet still ignored by Iran:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc
This would be true if we had ever formally declared war on them. We are not at war with them, never have been.
Hahaha. Man, oh, man. I personally lost two family members in the Korean war, so its hard for me to take your statement that we have never been at war seriously.
So what are you doing about it? I mean, besides bitching and whining?
So you think it's reasonable in a free and just society for armed men to go into a private company's offices, rip publically available posters of 40+ year old technology off the walls and destroy them in the name of national security?
No, actually I said that I doubt it would do any good at all. I doubt you could put much useful on a piece of paper that size. Hopefully, along with the posters, they classified the pieces of information that would be useful. Don't be fooled into thinking that just because its old it isn't useful. In fact, I remember a conversation a few years back about scrapping the space shuttle and going back to the Saturn design because it worked so well.
I take issue with the permeating hatred for the US and its government and everything it does. I can't understand how normally intelligent people can be so quick to categorize everything as evil or a conspiracy. Sometimes people are just doing their job, or the best they can. Personally, I don't see what freedom is getting taken away. There are so many worse things going on this world than you losing your stupid poster.
It will probably take decades to clean up the mess that Bush is making of the U.S.
Probably. But bitching about your poster getting taken away is so unproductive in helping clean up that mess. Personally, I find the fact that habeus corpus has been suspended as way more troubling. I'm concerned by the fact the Russia executes journalists that speak out against the government and poisons people with Polonium. I'm horrified that an American could ever treat someone as inhumanely as those pictures from Abu Ghraib. I guess that just me and my messed up priorities. Lets get back to this poster thing.
the United States isn't evil, just a HUGE hypocrite when it comes to international nuclear policy.
For the most part the United States abides by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, as do most nations. I would define hypocritical as saying one thing but doing another. Much like the North Koreans said they would shutdown their nuclear program in 1994, but they did the opposite.
Hypocritical would be embracing the portions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty that suits you and disregarding the rest. Much like North Korea (and now Iran) enrich(ed) Uranium while still under the NPT but withdrew when there was enough material to make a bomb.
I say that the United States is non-hypocritical "for the most" part only because of our recent endorsement of India as a nuclear power. But, personally, I'm not as worried about a moderate democracy like India having the bomb. What worries me are nuclear armed Mullahs bent on bringing the word of God to the infidels with a sword. What worries me are crazy dictators like Kim Jong Il. People who think they are God over a crumbling country and would think nothing of bringing the world down with them.
Still, if I remember correctly, the deal with India has not been fully approved. If you are so very concerned about the US's hypocrisy, then I would recommend writing your congressman and expressing your concern about the message we are sending to the world by transferring light water reactors to India. Or, next time you post you can use it as an example. Your welcome.