the idea is that you can do bad things to people without invading them (e.g. terrorist attacks, or US involvement in any number of semi-fascist 20th century puppet regimes) but when you involve States invading each other, you attack not only the negative element, but also your only internal hope for achieving stability. You make enemies out of your most valuable allies. By making Iraq the quagmire that it is, we have played directly into al-queda's hands. They knew Bush would use 9-11 as an excuse to finally invade iraq, and now Im sure their PR and recruitment is doing better than ever.
Can you name a time when a major world power was not subject to retalliation for its involvement in other people's lives?
can you name one democracy successfully established due completely to extrernal impetus? To save you time, Japan and Germany don't count, since (history unknown to many americans, suprise suprise) both were democracies before the leader that led to their involvment in wwii.
Another angle is the fact that America allies itself (and even aids) many nations that in no way belong to their people. Need I remind you that the WMD that we were supposedly still around in Iraq had come from the United States aide during the iran-iraq war.
My point is that the US is willing to accept a lack of democracy to the end of greater world stability. As Henry Kissinger says, sometimes states need to decide between evils. I am of the opinion, considering the quality of 'liberty' the Iraqis are now experiencing, that we chose the wrong evil this time. I'm just not sure a country that has never known democracy is going to pick it up because we tell them to.
I agree with you that you can't make everyone happy. I think we are making way more people unhappy than we need to, that's all.
I would say as your international presence increases, so will reaction from abroad for your actions (good or bad).
If, as P fo my original comment stated, we had different foriegn policy, yes, I do believe less people would feel the need to attack us.
The individuals blowing themselves up are not crazy, they are desperate. And while I of course don't condone it, I think we ought to at least attempt to understand why.
I don't think its because they 'hate freedom'.
The development of these defense weapons is not an imperative. Police don't patrol down my street in APCs, even though they exist. If we allow these sorts of things to be considered necessity, it is one more step towards culture-wide FUD that leads to internal instability.
One simple adjustment to those respective policies would be something along the lines of
"Don't invade other peoples' countries."
Its kind of hard to wrap your head around, but I think we can do it.
If you are saying race is not really an issue in America b/c we are all so sensitive to it now, you are crazy.
I live in Cincinnati, a moderate size US city on the east side of the midwest and the northern border of the South, and I can
tell you that racism is still a major issue. It isn't interpersonal, but it is systemic. It is more a class/economic issue than it
is a civil rights/personal freedoms issue. Cincinnati is a very segregated town, and the economic and race lines are pretty much
the same. So the solution isn't just getting rid of 'ignorance', it is pretty obvious that some bigger factors are at play then everyone respecting each other.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong with the ad. It's just dramatic. When I first saw this post, I thought it was just a delayed response
to the PSP ads with the psuedo-ebonics speaking squirrel/sewer rats. Now that seemed racist.
This explains what is legal and not in NH.
Seems ridiculous to me. I have to think you should be allowed to record anything on your property. Otherwise, wouldn't things like sound activated alarms be illegal? Seems like these cops are blatantly trying to cover themselves.
http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/newham pshire.html
Rebeka,
Could you please post the last three months of your bank transactions here to slashdot. While you are at it, why not your personal calendar, as well as the names and addresses of you and your family.
You might be a terrorist, and I think it would make the world safer if we all had a better handle on what you were up to. If you don't think it is any of our business, that suggests you believe that public participation in preventing terrorism is not an obligation, and therefore not something we should participate in. Otherwise, let see 'em...
I have to wholeheartedley agree with parent. If there is going to be a virus that is sucessful for mac, my guess it is going to be a sociallly engineered one, because the end result of any smugness on mac users part leads them to not even think twice about giving out their admin pw to any prompt they get. Granted, any one paying attention can check what process is asking for the password, but that is just the thing, the vast majority of mac users (particularly switchers) are on OS X b/c they think thyey don't have to pay attention.
There is no way to patch an idiot at the keyboard.
The only bias is that the sample set is macintouch readers, correct? Unless the type of laptop that macintouch readers receive differs from those that the rest of mac laptop users recieve, or usage by those readers influences their response, there is no particular bias.
Any survey is comprised of respondents that, well, respond. If you think 'self selection' is so unscientific, how do you think any poll works? Very much the same way. The only difference being that most 'scientific' polls can quantify non-response, as well as the respondants' statistical 'identity' e.g. respondant is male therefore represents 51% of the population, etc.
If they could quantify how many readers are apple laptop owners, then they could randomly apply 'participation' to all laptop-owner visitors, and then have a percentage of respondants that actually did respond, then they could get to some sort of margin of error, which I suppose is pretty important in polling.
IF they could somehow compare this to the actual numbers of laptops in use, this would also be very valuable.
The reality is that a lot of surveying that is supposedly 'scientific' goes on without these two components, because they are simply not possessed by the statisticians doing the surveying. But you are right, no sort of serious business decision should be made on these data, but i would not consider them useless.
Actually, that isn't entirely true about being nice as an evolutionary advantage. Human and primate societies rely on conflict as a means of natural selection. I don't mean they kill each other, I mean they compete for sexual primacy i.e. genetic propagation. From a natural selection prespective, this is the same as killing, it is stopping genetic continuity. While humans have developed a civilization that accepts 'orders' of sexual activity (ugly people meeting each other and having ugly little children) in the 'natural' world, sexual primacy i.e. alpha male status, is a monopoly.
now, about the agnostics/atheists, I totally agree. I was a fundamentalist for a little while, then got into liberal catholic theology, which basically made that exact point, that if you are being good b/c you fear hell, then you are not really being good, you are just being extorted morally. It is interesting, because when a christian morality admits that, it really changes the dynamic of the whole thing.
Aren't WAV and AIFF both potentially uncompressed? Those (as well as Apple Lossless) are options in iTunes...
Re:It's more like a plan to..
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually,
I've been reading some serious epidemiology journals for a class I am TA'ing, and they are pretty serious about this. I usually have my hype squelch turned up pretty high about this sort of thing, but those scientists don't seem to be joking around.
I think the system could adopt the Slashdot ranking method to a degree. Articles get 'modded' by fellow contributers that have themselves earned the mod points by writing good and modded articles. Modding would need to be seeded by trusted staff to get that 'economy' of credibility rolling, but once it did, there you go, self admined wiki. Then like you say, you can just set the level of credibility as you are browsing.
Yes, defending our country, as in being on the other side of the world when a major natural disaster strikes. Well done. Or perhaps defending those 'other people' by, for instance, invading their country and bombing their cities (and refusing to calculate civilian casualties, since it's not their job).
So to recap: To defend me, the military attacks other countries. To defend others, the military attacks their countries. Also, in defending said others, the military doesn't care how many of them they have killed.
If this is defense, you can keep it.
I'm not against the military, but if you equate "pre-emption" with defense, you need to revisit a dictionary (not to mention a 20th century history book)
I'm sorry I didn't realize I was in an adolescent twitcher script-kiddy IRC. What are you going to say next, that You totally pwned him on that last post?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you say you trust your son immediately after listing behavior your son would rightly perceive as you as distrusting him. pick one
the idea is that you can do bad things to people without invading them (e.g. terrorist attacks, or US involvement in any number of semi-fascist 20th century puppet regimes) but when you involve States invading each other, you attack not only the negative element, but also your only internal hope for achieving stability. You make enemies out of your most valuable allies. By making Iraq the quagmire that it is, we have played directly into al-queda's hands. They knew Bush would use 9-11 as an excuse to finally invade iraq, and now Im sure their PR and recruitment is doing better than ever.
Can you name a time when a major world power was not subject to retalliation for its involvement in other people's lives?
can you name one democracy successfully established due completely to extrernal impetus? To save you time, Japan and Germany don't count, since (history unknown to many americans, suprise suprise) both were democracies before the leader that led to their involvment in wwii.
Another angle is the fact that America allies itself (and even aids) many nations that in no way belong to their people. Need I remind you that the WMD that we were supposedly still around in Iraq had come from the United States aide during the iran-iraq war.
My point is that the US is willing to accept a lack of democracy to the end of greater world stability. As Henry Kissinger says, sometimes states need to decide between evils. I am of the opinion, considering the quality of 'liberty' the Iraqis are now experiencing, that we chose the wrong evil this time. I'm just not sure a country that has never known democracy is going to pick it up because we tell them to.
I agree with you that you can't make everyone happy. I think we are making way more people unhappy than we need to, that's all. I would say as your international presence increases, so will reaction from abroad for your actions (good or bad). If, as P fo my original comment stated, we had different foriegn policy, yes, I do believe less people would feel the need to attack us. The individuals blowing themselves up are not crazy, they are desperate. And while I of course don't condone it, I think we ought to at least attempt to understand why. I don't think its because they 'hate freedom'.
The development of these defense weapons is not an imperative. Police don't patrol down my street in APCs, even though they exist. If we allow these sorts of things to be considered necessity, it is one more step towards culture-wide FUD that leads to internal instability.
This is a tired argument, and that is a tired rationale. Iraqi=Afgani=Taliban=North African=Arab=evil, right?
One simple adjustment to those respective policies would be something along the lines of "Don't invade other peoples' countries." Its kind of hard to wrap your head around, but I think we can do it.
If you are saying race is not really an issue in America b/c we are all so sensitive to it now, you are crazy. I live in Cincinnati, a moderate size US city on the east side of the midwest and the northern border of the South, and I can tell you that racism is still a major issue. It isn't interpersonal, but it is systemic. It is more a class/economic issue than it is a civil rights/personal freedoms issue. Cincinnati is a very segregated town, and the economic and race lines are pretty much the same. So the solution isn't just getting rid of 'ignorance', it is pretty obvious that some bigger factors are at play then everyone respecting each other. That being said, I don't see anything wrong with the ad. It's just dramatic. When I first saw this post, I thought it was just a delayed response to the PSP ads with the psuedo-ebonics speaking squirrel/sewer rats. Now that seemed racist.
This explains what is legal and not in NH. Seems ridiculous to me. I have to think you should be allowed to record anything on your property. Otherwise, wouldn't things like sound activated alarms be illegal? Seems like these cops are blatantly trying to cover themselves. http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/newham pshire.html
The U2 iPod came with a coupon for $50 a $150 boxed set.
Rebeka, Could you please post the last three months of your bank transactions here to slashdot. While you are at it, why not your personal calendar, as well as the names and addresses of you and your family. You might be a terrorist, and I think it would make the world safer if we all had a better handle on what you were up to. If you don't think it is any of our business, that suggests you believe that public participation in preventing terrorism is not an obligation, and therefore not something we should participate in. Otherwise, let see 'em...
I have to wholeheartedley agree with parent. If there is going to be a virus that is sucessful for mac, my guess it is going to be a sociallly engineered one, because the end result of any smugness on mac users part leads them to not even think twice about giving out their admin pw to any prompt they get. Granted, any one paying attention can check what process is asking for the password, but that is just the thing, the vast majority of mac users (particularly switchers) are on OS X b/c they think thyey don't have to pay attention.
There is no way to patch an idiot at the keyboard.
Then that night everyone at the campground got robbed by a guy with a pocket knife.
Uses RDS too, very nice
The only bias is that the sample set is macintouch readers, correct? Unless the type of laptop that macintouch readers receive differs from those that the rest of mac laptop users recieve, or usage by those readers influences their response, there is no particular bias.
Any survey is comprised of respondents that, well, respond. If you think 'self selection' is so unscientific, how do you think any poll works? Very much the same way. The only difference being that most 'scientific' polls can quantify non-response, as well as the respondants' statistical 'identity' e.g. respondant is male therefore represents 51% of the population, etc.
If they could quantify how many readers are apple laptop owners, then they could randomly apply 'participation' to all laptop-owner visitors, and then have a percentage of respondants that actually did respond, then they could get to some sort of margin of error, which I suppose is pretty important in polling.
IF they could somehow compare this to the actual numbers of laptops in use, this would also be very valuable.
The reality is that a lot of surveying that is supposedly 'scientific' goes on without these two components, because they are simply not possessed by the statisticians doing the surveying. But you are right, no sort of serious business decision should be made on these data, but i would not consider them useless.
Actually, that isn't entirely true about being nice as an evolutionary advantage. Human and primate societies rely on conflict as a means of natural selection. I don't mean they kill each other, I mean they compete for sexual primacy i.e. genetic propagation. From a natural selection prespective, this is the same as killing, it is stopping genetic continuity. While humans have developed a civilization that accepts 'orders' of sexual activity (ugly people meeting each other and having ugly little children) in the 'natural' world, sexual primacy i.e. alpha male status, is a monopoly.
now, about the agnostics/atheists, I totally agree. I was a fundamentalist for a little while, then got into liberal catholic theology, which basically made that exact point, that if you are being good b/c you fear hell, then you are not really being good, you are just being extorted morally. It is interesting, because when a christian morality admits that, it really changes the dynamic of the whole thing.
Actually the U2 iPod came with a voucher for $50 off the $150 U2 box set. The music wasn't loaded.
cool idea though.
Aren't WAV and AIFF both potentially uncompressed? Those (as well as Apple Lossless) are options in iTunes...
Actually,
I've been reading some serious epidemiology journals for a class I am TA'ing, and they are pretty serious about this. I usually have my hype squelch turned up pretty high about this sort of thing, but those scientists don't seem to be joking around.
So that makes suburban atheists the most mentally sound... Who woulda thunk it.
I think the system could adopt the Slashdot ranking method to a degree. Articles get 'modded' by fellow contributers that have themselves earned the mod points by writing good and modded articles. Modding would need to be seeded by trusted staff to get that 'economy' of credibility rolling, but once it did, there you go, self admined wiki. Then like you say, you can just set the level of credibility as you are browsing.
Yes, and it would be seen as clear evidence of 'intelligent falling'
Pretty wild to imagine a U.S. vs. Nazi Eurasia cold war.
fine, we could have fought for the germans... (there are americans who really think we should have, more WWI than II)
Yes, defending our country, as in being on the other side of the world when a major natural disaster strikes. Well done.
Or perhaps defending those 'other people' by, for instance, invading their country and bombing their cities (and refusing to calculate civilian casualties, since it's not their job).
So to recap: To defend me, the military attacks other countries. To defend others, the military attacks their countries. Also, in defending said others, the military doesn't care how many of them they have killed.
If this is defense, you can keep it.
I'm not against the military, but if you equate "pre-emption" with defense, you need to revisit a dictionary (not to mention a 20th century history book)
noob
I'm sorry I didn't realize I was in an adolescent twitcher script-kiddy IRC. What are you going to say next, that You totally pwned him on that last post?
w00t!
gg.
N00b!