I don't know what your point is. All I said was "targeting unsuspecting and innocent civilians is cowardly". Would you kindly point out when and where I ever said "that does not apply to the US"?
Oh, I didn't? Good, now will you please pack up your flawed logic and agenda-blinded brain and GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SIGHT!
Um, no..., first of all, the whole point of patching up your Windows is so that no matter how screwed up somebody else's is, yours won't be affected. Again, complain about your Windows not being secure enough, but not others'.
Secondly, where do we draw the line if we go down your route? If Microsoft is obligated to "service" you by keep all the illegal copies of Windows updated, why shouldn't it also be obligated to give free upgrade to those customers who aren't willing to? That would "service" you, too, because an outdated Windows installation out there potentially makes your latest and greatest not yet so safe, right?
Most end-users wouldn't recognise a security issue if it was walking in the middle of the street, naked, waving a huge vlag that had "Security Issue" printed in bold on it.
I believe that would be because those security issues weren't hot enough.
Talbott shows how the machines we use create a grand illusion, namely, that by having every technological gadget, we will save time and money, and be able to spend more time with our family and loved ones. However, that leisure time never materializes. The technology costs more, not less. Consequently, we find ourselves in a perpetual struggle to preserve a bare minimum of human emotions and instincts.
My mom lives half globe away, but if I wish to talk with her, she's 5 phone buttons away. If she wishes to see me and her newly born granddaughter, it takes mere seconds to fire up Skype, instead of a 20-hour flight a decade ago.
The materialization of the benefits from the machines may be "a grand illusion" to the author, but certainly not to me.
What you are saying makes sense. During some interviewer training I once took, one of the bullet points was that asking about one's race/origin/age/health status/etc. is a big no-no during an interview, because then if the company decides not to make an offer, the interviewee may have some solid ground for an equal opportunity law suit. I guess the same concept would apply here if the bill is passed.
...My point is that we ought to not get involved in trying to promote a certain form of government in countries before they are ready to accept it...
It often strikes me as odd that many people fail to distinguish between "democracy as a government form", and "democracy as a fundamental value". There can be many forms of democracies, but all of which are based on the same fundamental value. A people may never have had any "history of democracy" as far as the form of their government is concerned, but that doesn't mean they don't deserver/aren't ready for the democracy as a value - everybody deserves not to be oppressed or be imposed upon.
Should the US (or any country for that matter) be trying to promote/implement a certain form of goverment in another country? Hell no! But should the US be trying to promote the idea of democracy/freedom? Hell yes!
When did the SCOTUS decide that the detainment of Padilla was constitutional? As far as I remember, it threw out the case only on a technical ground - the petition should have been filed under a different jurisdiction, which Padilla did, and won.
If anything, the ruling by the SCOTUS on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld reflects exactly the opposite of what you are saying.
But then what? We'd have Cheney as president. That would be much, much worse. And the Congress are a lot of weak-kneed cowards who are afraid to spend their political capital on anything risky, which includes impeachment. Although the House could easily muster an impeachment, there is no way the Republicans in the Senate would vote to convict, meaning that the whole exercise would have no practical impact whatsoever.
I guess you were the kid who never stood up to the bully because "there is no way I can win a fight". This is like arguing "let's not bother to catch this thief because there is always going to be the next one." To me, the importance of even just starting an impeachment shows how determined the American people can be. And that will go a long way in warning whoever comes next.
Besides, from the practical standpoint, looking at how the Republican senators have been trying to distance themselves with the white house on so many issues, it's not entirely impossible for enough of them to defect in an impeachment.
It's not that we don't give a shit, it's that after 200+ years we've come to the conclusion that we're screwed no matter what we do.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, it is this self-fulfilling cynicism that's causing you to be screwed - or to be screwing yourselves, more accurately?
It was NOT an occasional thing. Most of the Chinese dynasties literally took anywhere between half and one third of their entire life span to slowly "draw to their end". Taking the Qing Dynasty as an example, at its peak, under the reign of Qiang Long Emperor, selling government positions was a systematical phenomenon. The members of the emperor's privy council would take bribery to recommend a particular person to the emperor for a governor position (which would come with specific "price tags" depending on how economically developed a province was). The governor, once being in the office, would start collecting briberies for lower level positions, which also carried their respective "price tags".
Persons of wealth buying the positions (in the Church and in the Armed Services) isn't something that happened (or happens) in tribal societies - nor (in the Western) world does it happen today. (It was largely wiped out in the late 1800's to early 1900's.) It was rare in feudal Japan and virtually nonexistent in classical China.
Please define "classical". There are historical records going back to as far as the Han Dynasty of emperors or powerful ministers literally selling government positions. The same happened repeatedly in almost all the following dynasties as they drew to their respective end.
Morally reprehensible from OUR moral code only, thanks. Who are we to say that OUR moral code is more valid than the Chinese government's moral code?
And who are you to say that the "Chinese government's moral code" is the same as the Chinese people's - if they were to have the freedom to choose?
And who are you to assume that the Chinese people would have some moral code so fundamentally different from "ours" that in that code lives aren't even respected?
What part of "this ain't about the US" in my post do you not understand?!
Remember, every bit of "it's not all that better in the US" you (and GP) so eagerly splattering around actually helps the totalitarian regime in China.
Think you are cute, do you? Well, frankly, I'm sick and tired of how people like you so quickly - no later than the fucking first post?! - hijack this thread to "how bad it is here in the US". I'd be glad to join you on Bush-bashing over there, but this one is about China, OK?
Thanks, but that only lets me run firefox with different profiles. It's not what I'm looking for. If I have an IE instance running, and I start another IE instance from the Windows desktop, the new IE instance will have completely separated run-time data (e.g. web sessions) from the existing one, while sharing the same static data, e.g. bookmarks and persisted cookies. IE may have been stupid on lots of other stuff, this sure is one thing it did right.
As I said earlier, I mostly agree with you on this point itself. I think our difference is that I don't think the situation is as bad as you are describing it. Simply put, I believe you are overestimating the capability of the public school system in this country. 8-) You keep repeating the word "exclusively" as if that is the only information kids are allowed to receive or will ever receive during their entire education. High school kids, if they are interested, are capable of researching and learning a lot of things outside their classrooms. And they also will have an abundance of chances to learn more about this when they enter the college. If all the high school kids had grown up carrying all and only all of what they were taught in high school classrooms, we would not have had the problem called Intelligent Design, would we? 8-)
Please keep in mind that what we are talking about is in the context of high school education, rather than the much more broader context of history research or publication. If historians started publishing exclusively books about the Holocaust only, yes, I would absolutely agree with you that that's a very bad thing. For high school kids, as long as their teacher don't tell them "the Jews were the only ones killed by the Nazis," I don't see much point of contending for the percentage of time given to teaching the suffering of each group, because, like I said before, the more important message to pass on doesn't have to do with numbers.
That having been said, the current state of holocaust education effectively denies the deaths of the millions of non-Jews by focusing exclusively on the deaths of the Jews. It invalidates their suffering. You yourself implicitly said it was unimportant. And thus, people grow up thinking that genocide is some kind of rare thing which confines itself to one people at a time, and not only is this not correct, but the message is injured. Think I'm wrong? Ask an average American high school kid about Darfur, or the Armenians, or the purges in the Soviet Union, or Cambodia.
I understand your point, and, to some degree, agree with you in principle. But I also want to go on the record and say that I find your statement above (highlighted by me) insulting. I have never said, explicitly or implicitly, that the other deaths are unimportant. What I said was that it was not a FUNDAMENTALLY important thing to focus on comparing which race/group got killed more and competing for the "most suffering victim" award, which seems to be what a lot of people (including some of the Jewish people) are trying to do these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I didn't? Good, now will you please pack up your flawed logic and agenda-blinded brain and GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SIGHT!
And babbling about the "Republican-controlled media in the USA" is, well, just babbling.
Secondly, where do we draw the line if we go down your route? If Microsoft is obligated to "service" you by keep all the illegal copies of Windows updated, why shouldn't it also be obligated to give free upgrade to those customers who aren't willing to? That would "service" you, too, because an outdated Windows installation out there potentially makes your latest and greatest not yet so safe, right?
Microsoft definitely deserves the blame for having the security holes in their products, but your angle is really just high horse riding.
Fantastic! No more sweaty hands!
The materialization of the benefits from the machines may be "a grand illusion" to the author, but certainly not to me.
What you are saying makes sense. During some interviewer training I once took, one of the bullet points was that asking about one's race/origin/age/health status/etc. is a big no-no during an interview, because then if the company decides not to make an offer, the interviewee may have some solid ground for an equal opportunity law suit. I guess the same concept would apply here if the bill is passed.
Should the US (or any country for that matter) be trying to promote/implement a certain form of goverment in another country? Hell no! But should the US be trying to promote the idea of democracy/freedom? Hell yes!
If anything, the ruling by the SCOTUS on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld reflects exactly the opposite of what you are saying.
It was NOT an occasional thing. Most of the Chinese dynasties literally took anywhere between half and one third of their entire life span to slowly "draw to their end". Taking the Qing Dynasty as an example, at its peak, under the reign of Qiang Long Emperor, selling government positions was a systematical phenomenon. The members of the emperor's privy council would take bribery to recommend a particular person to the emperor for a governor position (which would come with specific "price tags" depending on how economically developed a province was). The governor, once being in the office, would start collecting briberies for lower level positions, which also carried their respective "price tags".
My tank got killed by a frig'n phalanx despite the 100 to 1 odds!
And who are you to assume that the Chinese people would have some moral code so fundamentally different from "ours" that in that code lives aren't even respected?
Remember, every bit of "it's not all that better in the US" you (and GP) so eagerly splattering around actually helps the totalitarian regime in China.
Think you are cute, do you? Well, frankly, I'm sick and tired of how people like you so quickly - no later than the fucking first post?! - hijack this thread to "how bad it is here in the US". I'd be glad to join you on Bush-bashing over there, but this one is about China, OK?
Sigh, it was supposed to be a different version of "you must be new here" ... Do we have to add a smiley to the end of every line?
Thanks, but that only lets me run firefox with different profiles. It's not what I'm looking for. If I have an IE instance running, and I start another IE instance from the Windows desktop, the new IE instance will have completely separated run-time data (e.g. web sessions) from the existing one, while sharing the same static data, e.g. bookmarks and persisted cookies. IE may have been stupid on lots of other stuff, this sure is one thing it did right.
When are we going to be able to run multiple firefox instances in isolated processes?
Please keep in mind that what we are talking about is in the context of high school education, rather than the much more broader context of history research or publication. If historians started publishing exclusively books about the Holocaust only, yes, I would absolutely agree with you that that's a very bad thing. For high school kids, as long as their teacher don't tell them "the Jews were the only ones killed by the Nazis," I don't see much point of contending for the percentage of time given to teaching the suffering of each group, because, like I said before, the more important message to pass on doesn't have to do with numbers.