Well then apparently Eisenhower and MacArthur must have been very much out of the loop.
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act....the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." -- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." -- Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
I believe Eisenhower's "alternative scheme" was to accept their existing motions of conditional surrender. Their only condition was the continuation of the monarchy, and after unconditional surrender the US decided that the monarchy should be allowed to continue anyway, so there had been no actual point.
This is interesting but none of of these seem like root causes of terrorism. These are all features of terrorism that may or may not be necessary but are certainly not sufficient to explain why terrorism occurs. For instance, that terrorism is "simple" isn't a reason to commit terrorism. Perhaps that it is simple allows it to happen once the underlying desire is there, but it is not in itself the underlying "root cause".
There are also a lot of concerns about ensuring this is actually a path with true possibility of results rather than a ghoulish battleground over the value of life and a macabe sideshow. Think of how the Nazi and Imperial Japanese performed experiments on living people. Where is the line drawn? It's a very serious issue.
Yes, where is the line between stem cell research and Nazi experiments on living people? Oh, where is the line!?
This is a serious issue. We need to find out where this line is before we continue. After all, we might not know where it is! If we really don't, then we might someday find ourselves doing Nazi experiments on living people! Because we didn't know where the line was! After all, if we don't know where the obscure line between stem cell research and Nazi experiments on living people is, we might as well consider the two inseperable. If there's no line between the two, they are the same thing!
Our mission is clear: find the fine line between stem cell research and Nazi experimentation on living people. And after that we can try to find the line between stem cell research and blimp accidents, free fire war zones or small pox! If we don't, then we might find ourselves shooting down blimps or giving ourselves small pox if we approve of stem cell research. Only once these lines are found can we continue.
The problem with Rand's argument, is she's saying "so long as I'm virtuous to hell with everybody else". See, that last part is exactly NOT what they're doing.
She says that helping others can make you feel good. From this she says that therefore the ONLY reason to do it is to make you feel good, and the ONLY thing it does is make you feel good. And from that she goes further and says that since you feel good everyone else must therefore want the worst for everyone else.
What they're doing is being virtuous AND the OPPOSITE of to hell with everyone else. It doesn't really matter why you do it... if it makes you feel good that DOES NOT mean that is the only reason to do it. It may actually be a good/moral in and of itself independent of one's feelings about it.
If I had to guess, I would say that the majority of "religious people" haven't really thought about it, but among those who have, the group who claims incompatibility between creation and evolution is a vocal minority.
Why wonder when the actual numbers are a google search away?
* A substantial majority of Americans (about 7 in 10) believe the scientific Theory of Evolution is compatible with a belief in God - one does not preclude the other.
linky
So, according to these results, you're partly right: most religious people think that evolution is compatible with theism. Those that don't are in a respectably-sized 30% minority.
Here is the problem however:
Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.
linky
So, the problem is that while most Americans believe that evolution is compatible with theism, most simply don't believe in evolution regardless.
Don't be ridiculous. I'm sure that China will continue to loan us money forever, so there's no need for concern. More than half of our $400,000,000,000 annual deficit is purchased by foreign backers so thank goodness we can always trust them.
Some of you may say that in 20 or 30 years, 20 or 30 percent of our total economic output will be spent on paying the interest on these loans. But who knows what new kinds of math will be invented in that time?? And it's nothing but bias that prevents people from seeing that.
The party breakdown for extending the Patriot Act was:
Yea- 43 democrats 214 republicans
Nay- 159 democrats 12 republicans
It's fun to blame the politicians, but ultimately you have to blame the people and the political climate where people will be deluged by ads next election season calling them "soft on terrorism! so-and-so voted to help The Terrorists hurt Our Children!" The problem is the politicians who are unable to counter this and the voters who are dumb enough to believe it in the first place.
Also the article mentions that an amendment requiring the FBI Director to personally approve any library or bookstore search passed 402-26. Cute.
The "Save to my web" feature is really cool. I'm going to try it out. But, you don't need to install the toolbar to use it, there's a javascript link in the FAQ you can drag to the button bar to use that way....whether or not they're actually putting the popup blocker
Popup blocker? For Firefox? That would be like seeing a Simpson on a T-shirt.
A further difference is that the British rating is based on violence, and the new American rating is based on the sudden horrific discovery of sex mixed in with the violence.
For those that will read the above post after they change the blurb, I cut and pasted from view source:
Posted by
Zonk
on Tuesday July 19, @02:26PM from the murdoch-immediately-propositioned-for-cyber dept. jagger writes "a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4695495. stm">News Corp announced on Monday that it , owner of the popular MySpace.com social networking site, for $580 million.
This follows an announcement by News Corp on Friday that it is creating
an Internet division to hold the company's sports, news and
entertainment sites."
Those broken links and html errors were not produced by my copy and pasting process. I can't imagine how even I could be more sloppy, and trust me, that's not good. There's a 'preview' button for comments. Is there one for posts?
The charge is that they Rockstar intentionally misled parents, that they wanted to avoid an AO rating which would have hurt sales because more parents wouldn't buy the game!
The game clearly had 'AO' content that parents would have no way of knowing about when making their decision, either becaue Rockstar was too lazy to remove that part of the game when they realized it would earn them an AO rating, or because they intentionally left it there because they wanted to get an M rating under the radar. Either through negligence or through intentional wrongdoing, they undermined parents' responsibility that you so boldly assert.
Me personally, I don't really care if there's a sex scene in GTA or a dozen of them. It's really not a big deal to me. However, the horrific loss of rights they're suggesting in response to this is to change the game rating from 'M' to 'AO'. If you, like me, cannot understand why people are getting so enraged over this thing, then I can't understand why anyone would get enraged over this proposed solution which I think is really not a big deal in any scheme of things.
Slashdot Mirror
But did you have to learn to stop worrying before you loved the bomb?
You should report all of this stuff to the US Secret Service Financial Crimes Division. They handle international fraud schemes like this.
Here's their 419 site and a list of crimes they cover
Well then apparently Eisenhower and MacArthur must have been very much out of the loop.
...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." -- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." -- Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
I believe Eisenhower's "alternative scheme" was to accept their existing motions of conditional surrender. Their only condition was the continuation of the monarchy, and after unconditional surrender the US decided that the monarchy should be allowed to continue anyway, so there had been no actual point.
MacArthur made similar arguments at the time.
Right, the EU is considering this because of Socialism. Is socialism against filesharing? Copyright enforcement is hardly a socialist hot button.
This can only be explained by corporatism. Intellectual "property" protection protects mostly Microsofts and Disneys.
You may be thinking of anon.penet.fi. Was popular on usenet while it lasted.
This is interesting but none of of these seem like root causes of terrorism. These are all features of terrorism that may or may not be necessary but are certainly not sufficient to explain why terrorism occurs. For instance, that terrorism is "simple" isn't a reason to commit terrorism. Perhaps that it is simple allows it to happen once the underlying desire is there, but it is not in itself the underlying "root cause".
What you really would want is a dump of WikiTravel
There are also a lot of concerns about ensuring this is actually a path with true possibility of results rather than a ghoulish battleground over the value of life and a macabe sideshow. Think of how the Nazi and Imperial Japanese performed experiments on living people. Where is the line drawn? It's a very serious issue.
Yes, where is the line between stem cell research and Nazi experiments on living people? Oh, where is the line!?
This is a serious issue. We need to find out where this line is before we continue. After all, we might not know where it is! If we really don't, then we might someday find ourselves doing Nazi experiments on living people! Because we didn't know where the line was! After all, if we don't know where the obscure line between stem cell research and Nazi experiments on living people is, we might as well consider the two inseperable. If there's no line between the two, they are the same thing!
Our mission is clear: find the fine line between stem cell research and Nazi experimentation on living people. And after that we can try to find the line between stem cell research and blimp accidents, free fire war zones or small pox! If we don't, then we might find ourselves shooting down blimps or giving ourselves small pox if we approve of stem cell research. Only once these lines are found can we continue.
What is he doing on slashdot? He's imputing the motives of those he doesn't like to psychological "pathology". Fits slashdot to a T.
The problem with Rand's argument, is she's saying "so long as I'm virtuous to hell with everybody else". See, that last part is exactly NOT what they're doing.
She says that helping others can make you feel good. From this she says that therefore the ONLY reason to do it is to make you feel good, and the ONLY thing it does is make you feel good. And from that she goes further and says that since you feel good everyone else must therefore want the worst for everyone else.
What they're doing is being virtuous AND the OPPOSITE of to hell with everyone else. It doesn't really matter why you do it... if it makes you feel good that DOES NOT mean that is the only reason to do it. It may actually be a good/moral in and of itself independent of one's feelings about it.
yahoo.com. What a pointless and crowded web portal.
use search.yahoo.com for a bare bones interface
Why wonder when the actual numbers are a google search away?
So, according to these results, you're partly right: most religious people think that evolution is compatible with theism. Those that don't are in a respectably-sized 30% minority.
Here is the problem however:
So, the problem is that while most Americans believe that evolution is compatible with theism, most simply don't believe in evolution regardless.
Why do you assume that the parent poster isn't black?
Don't be ridiculous. I'm sure that China will continue to loan us money forever, so there's no need for concern. More than half of our $400,000,000,000 annual deficit is purchased by foreign backers so thank goodness we can always trust them.
Some of you may say that in 20 or 30 years, 20 or 30 percent of our total economic output will be spent on paying the interest on these loans. But who knows what new kinds of math will be invented in that time?? And it's nothing but bias that prevents people from seeing that.
Why aren't you disgusted with the voters?
The party breakdown for extending the Patriot Act was:
Yea-
43 democrats
214 republicans
Nay-
159 democrats
12 republicans
It's fun to blame the politicians, but ultimately you have to blame the people and the political climate where people will be deluged by ads next election season calling them "soft on terrorism! so-and-so voted to help The Terrorists hurt Our Children!" The problem is the politicians who are unable to counter this and the voters who are dumb enough to believe it in the first place.
Also the article mentions that an amendment requiring the FBI Director to personally approve any library or bookstore search passed 402-26. Cute.
The "Save to my web" feature is really cool. I'm going to try it out. But, you don't need to install the toolbar to use it, there's a javascript link in the FAQ you can drag to the button bar to use that way. ...whether or not they're actually putting the popup blocker
Popup blocker? For Firefox? That would be like seeing a Simpson on a T-shirt.
No, you've got it backwards. This is more evidence that the people aren't interested in what their government electees are doing.
First off, the overwhelming majority of calls I get are commercial (usually credit cards/mortgage loan scams). So, be that as it may,
The airhorn idea is not going to work. What you really want to do is get ahold of a small amplifier...
here you go
(Disclaimer: I am not liable for anything you do with this information)
What makes you think the successor to the Shuttle won't be a pork politics blasphemy?
A further difference is that the British rating is based on violence, and the new American rating is based on the sudden horrific discovery of sex mixed in with the violence.
The charge is that they Rockstar intentionally misled parents, that they wanted to avoid an AO rating which would have hurt sales because more parents wouldn't buy the game!
The game clearly had 'AO' content that parents would have no way of knowing about when making their decision, either becaue Rockstar was too lazy to remove that part of the game when they realized it would earn them an AO rating, or because they intentionally left it there because they wanted to get an M rating under the radar. Either through negligence or through intentional wrongdoing, they undermined parents' responsibility that you so boldly assert.
Me personally, I don't really care if there's a sex scene in GTA or a dozen of them. It's really not a big deal to me. However, the horrific loss of rights they're suggesting in response to this is to change the game rating from 'M' to 'AO'. If you, like me, cannot understand why people are getting so enraged over this thing, then I can't understand why anyone would get enraged over this proposed solution which I think is really not a big deal in any scheme of things.
Given that Apple thinks everyone should be editing their own home videos, it seems likely that they will let you do this out of the box.