Ok, oracle. when did the soviet union cease being a threat to the United States of America? 1973? 1965? 1950? 1945? or 1917? And what level of economic stabilization is required to launch nuclear missiles which will turn this country into a big glass crater and extinguish life from the rest of the planet? When were they no longer capable of that? Or do you believe that they were never capable of it?
I'm really not sure if you're making a concerted effort not to understand my point or what the problem is.
They are still potentially a threat to us even today. Heck, that fact might never change. It also has nothing to do with the point.
In at least the decade prior to the collapse, our assessment of their capabilities, their armament levels and the capabilities of their weapons systems were entirely overblown. This is quite well understood at this point. So, while it was necessary to maintain a solid military capability, the mad spree of spending our children's money like mad was not necessary.
ah, so Reagan founded islamic fundamentalism. I understand now.....
Of course, that's not what I said either as you well know. He merely funded, organized, trained and armed them. Then when he was done using them he fucked them. So like I said, his policies were *a* direct cause of the rise of islamofascism. Not the only one.
so, who, as an 11 year old, did you know who had intimate knowledge of the SDI program which wasn't christened until a year later.
I've never heard anybody try to claim it was anything besides a joke until the current administration started reviving it other than the loons trying to sell it originally.
Suffice to say, that anyone who's sig promotes the commission of a violent felony because of political party affiliation is an ass to me.
It has nothing to do with the political affiliation. It's the simple fact that anybody who still supports that party at this point in the game has declared war on my constitution, my liberty, and my way of life. By maintaining that affiliation they are stating flat out that they stand for torture, that they stand for the elimination of the bill of rights and that they want to eliminate the constitution and replace it with a fascist theocracy. Mindless denial of those simple facts would be idiotic at this point. Actions speak far louder than words and that is exactly what their actions say. I didn't start this war, but I will damn well defend myself.
I don't care who you are, Murder is Evil.
Actually, in this situation it's a simple case of patriotism and self defense.
but even I realize the most useless piece of equipment in New Orleans would have been a gun. Thanks for the laugh.
But I don't live in New Orleans. Or anywhere they have hurricanes, or flooding for that matter. I was merely pointing out how one person got her implicit assumption (that we're all far too civilized for things to break down so fast or far) shaken up by the events.
that's the whole point. the rest is revisionist history.
No, not at all. Once upon a time people thought the sun went around the earth. When new facts come to light, a rational person tends to readdress previously held assumptions.
they didn't need a stable economy to launch nuclear weapons at me. all they needed was a stable military infrastructure. which they still had in 1981, and in 1989. But not in 1991 or 1999.
Which is irrelevant to the point that they were nowhere near the level of threat as they were supposed to be at that time.
see his autobiography Grumbles from the Grave (the one published just after his death.
Will do, thanks.
You are saying that these are linked? Sorry, but I'm going to need, if not proof, at least some rationale for why you think that the fall of the soviet union has anything to do with islamic fundamentalism.
The fall of the Soviet Union isn't what is linked to these. The policies of the Reagan administration were a very direct cause of these.
Again, revisionist history.
Again, you don't seem to know what that term means.
It was a joke to some, but not others. In many ways it was a huge intelligence coup. Reports of SDI successes were way overblown and leaked to various KGB sources which made the Kremlin think that it was viable, when some of the ideas for it were pretty ludicrous at best.
Seems like that is pretty far fetched. It was a joke to pretty much everyone I ever talked to except the people pushing the crazy idea that it would work, of course. Their main goal was wasting tax dollars though, so I never put much faith into their babblings.
You, of course, are an ass.
It's certainly been said before, but I'm really not sure what I said in this conversation to provoke that.
Our economy is not bolstered by any of these. in many ways, these hinder our economy.
Well, they certainly shape our economy and bolster the profits of a few industries at the expense of the rest of us. Absolutely they hinder the economy, but that's irrelevant to the few making massive profits off the public dime.
Our economy is based on peace, industry, and commerce.
Yeah, sure it is. When was the last time we had any kind of extended peace? That's a very silly statement since it goes against every relevant fact.
If the US were to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq it would accomplish nothing, as Islamic fundamentalists want nothing less than the withdrawl of all US forces from the middle east, including (but not limited to) Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan. They also what Israel destroyed, but aren't as bad about that as they used to (which could easily change if we actually were stupid enough to comply with their wishes).
Not really sure where that relates to the subject. If we hadn't made up ridiculous fantasies as an excuse to invade Iraq our economy would be doing much better, but then the weapons industry and Haliburton et al wouldn't be reaping huge profits off of our children's backs. Of course it has destabilized the region which will keep another long term conflict going which will enable even more of our money to be siphoned off by the military industrial complex, but that has been a major goal of some ever since the end of the cold war.
I find that the LP is far more concerned in the near term with removing obstacles to economic development and personal liberty than the dismantling of the welfare state.
Were I convinced of this, I'd be much more supportive of them.
They both need to be done, but it's far more urgent to end corporate welfare than to end welfare dependency of individuals.
I agree totally. Do you have a reference to somewhere the Libertarian Party actually agrees with us on this?
The way I would state that, is that the right wing is libertarian on some issues. Describing Cato as "right-wing" is just the way that the pinkos try to ignore them. The right-wingers try to ignore them by denouncing Cato's opposition to the drug war.
I find the picture developed here (referred to by the author as the "Rational Spectrum") to be much more illuminating than the standard left/right scale or even the Nolan Chart or Political Compass.
My problem with the Libertarian Party is that they seem to me to be much more gung ho about ripping out the safety net before fixing the problems that it (poorly) addresses.
My wife (British, pretty loony lefty on some topics) and I were watching (on TV) a presentation by the Cato institute about the disparity of wages between men and women. Their point was that there really isn't much of one if everything is taken into account. We were discussing it and she pretty much totally agreed with what the presenter had to say. Her face dropped when I told her who Cato is;-)
Of course when we were watching the Katrina aftermath and how quickly "civilization" deteriorated afterwards. She turned to me and said, "That shotgun I said I'd never live in the same house as....just don't let me see it."
First off, communism is NOT a wonderful idea. At it's heart, it's central planning, and that just doesn't work.
Not true. In reality it's about central planning and various really nasty things; gulags and the like. The idea is that the government goes away and it's all blissful anarchy. It's never happened that way primarily due to human nature, but the idea was nice. Much in the same way that Santa Claus is a great idea. The reality is that the malls are crowded around Christmas time;-)
Out of buying a CD or shirt or something, how much goes to the project? Do they have a breakdown?
My wild ass guess is everything after production and shipping costs. When you make an order, it goes through their servers, the contact email that you're given goes to one of the team members. I just ordered 3.8 and a T Shirt today;-)
When I ordered 3.5, I emailed to check on the status of the order and was told that they do weekly shipments or something to that affect and that he'd have to run over to the other building to check on it, so I think it's all pretty much in house.
I've been using it for my home firewall for about 8 years now and with CARP being mature now, we're actually looking at replacing our aging failover PIX setup at work with OpenBSD servers for a huge savings even fully supported.
at 14, in 1981, I saw the Soviet Union as a threat.
Again with the what you thought back then;-)
As to whether this was a failing of intelligence departments or maliciousness, I don't think it was either. Even if we had concrete evidence of it, NO ONE would have believed it.
Nobody would have believed it because they had been told over and over what a tremendous threat they were. That's a self fulfilling prophecy.
many (including guys like Robert Heinlein) knew that their economy wasn't sustainable
Not sure where the Heinlein reference came from. Was there something specific you had in mind, or was the SciFi reference to get the thread back on topic (free broadband for all;-)
I think that the trigger for unfolding of that threat was neither SDI nor military buildup, but the Cherynobyl. Cherynobyl exposed the underlying weakness in their economic structure in a way that couldn't be papered over with Soviet propoganda.
That was certainly a factor.
I do agree that SDI and the military buildup accelerated things and I feel, to this day that that was a VERY GOOD THING. The chaos in the region we have today, and have had over the last 15 years is a small price for bringing down 75 years of communism.
I, on the other hand, think that 9/11, the Taliban, Islamofascism, CIA involvement in the international cocaine trade, and the arming and training of the terrorists we're fighting now, and the massive expansion of the military industrial complex and the attendant promotion of violence all over the world make the price you mentioned not so small at all.
. By convincing them that pretty soon launching nukes would do no good, we chopped 20 years off their ability to get their economy under control. In fact, I'd say without SDI and Reagan we'd still be talking about the Soviet Union in the present tense instead of the past tense.
Hardly. Star Wars was a joke then and it's not much better now. Although I did just read an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs about the rise of American nuclear primacy which makes a good case that we're near if not already able to launch unanswered nuclear first strikes against Russia and/or China. SDI would only need to pick off a few stragglers if that. That however wasn't the situation then and nobody really believed it was useful at all.
The Soviet economy NEVER really worked. but it was bolstered by a) conquest and b) ruthlessness, and c) fear.
Which, of course, are three things that bolster our economy to this day. Our system has a much better base though. I'd say that the USSR's economy was basically propped up primarily by those while ours is bolstered by them.
Stop blaming one faction of todays government for finally showning you that YOU have no rights anymore. The assault on your civil liberties started two administrations ago.
Heck, it's older than that. It goes back at least to the start of the war on drugs which raped the 4th amendment. It doesn't even really matter which half of The Party was in charge then since both halves have held power since and have done nothing but increase the abuses inherent in any sort of prohibition.
What Bush is doing is wrong, and frankly he should be in jail. The fact that Clinton may well deserve the next cell over is not an excuse, it's an example of how bad the problem realy is.
Just a bit of advice here, sparky: a big part of why people are leaving the democrat faction of the Ruling Party in droves, is precisely the kind of asine vitriol you display here.
Wow, your post is so wrong on so many levels.
In the first place, don't confuse me with a Democrat. Hating anybody who would still support the Republicans at this point in the game is basic common sense, self defense, human decency, and patriotism. It has nothing to do with supporting the "other" party.
People leaving the Democratic party due to asinine vitriol?!? Whoa, dude seriously get a grip on reality. People are jumping off the Democrat ship due to lack of leadership, lack of direction and too much similarity to the Republicans. Show me a person who left the Democrats due to "assinine vitriol" and I'll show you a deluded idiot with a tenuous grip on reality. That's because the Democrats aren't the ones who use that as their primary tool. That would be the Republicans. You know, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilley and the rest of the Right Wing Hate Squad. Sorry, but pretending that the Democrats are even within an order of magnitude of the Republicans in terms of ignorant hate spewing is just pure insanity.
I saw plenty of cheap shots at Clinton, but they were expressions of disgust rather than calls for murder.
Of course, Clinton wasn't actively engaged in massive treason either. What a retarded argument: Durrrrrrrr.. you stole a candy bar and only got a ticket. I burned down a high rise full of people and they want to send me to the gas chamber. Whaaaa Whaaaa life ain't fair.
So, let me get this straight. You are saying that in 1981, the USSR was doomed.
Absolutely.
How old are you? were you even alive in 1981?
I'm 36 which would put me at 11-12 in 1981. Old enough to know that the USSR was *seen* as a tremendous threat at the time which isn't what I'm arguing.
Maybe it was all a sham, but me and the rest of the American Public don't recall it that way.
Like I said, I'm well aware of the common view at the time. I don't know if "sham" is the right word as I think that implies somebody is actively trying to promote a false image. The fact is that our assessments of their capabilities at that time were totally overblown and downright laughable given what we now know. Whether this was just honest bad intelligence or whether it was malicious as the current "intelligence failures" are isn't something I can say, nor is it really relevant to my point.
Even if you believe Scott Shane, this doesn't answer the question of Why the Soviet Economy was crumbling.
The reasons were numerous although mainly related to how crappy of an economic system they were running. The SDI thing merely accelerated the fall leading to the total disorder we see in that whole region today.
so, care to say that the USSR was going down anyhow? It sure didn't feel like that to me in 1981.
Absolutely it was. Maybe you should pull your head out of 1981 and take a look at the reality 25 years later. Or are you arguing that the USSR was running a healthy sustainable economy and it was only their need to keep up with us on the SDI nonsense that broke their otherwise stellar system?
all that and the downfall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc.
Yeah, pull the other leg. That assessment has been so thoroughly routed it's ridiculous. The USSR was going down anyhow. All Reagan managed to do was make it collapse suddenly rather than with any possibility of an orderly transition leading to plenty of missing nuclear material and mob takeover. Oh yeah, and tremendous debt for us and our children.
Do you have any actual positive accomplishments to list or was that old chestnut the best you can do?
The Republicans platform is a mix of classical liberalism (that's right) and religious fundamentalism.
This is only remotely true if by "platform" you mean "the lies they tell idiots who are apparently incapable of telling the difference between what people say and what they do to convince them to keep voting against their own best interests. The actual Republican platform meaning what they actually do stand for is pure Fascism, extreme authoratarianism and utter blind rabid hatred of "Liberals" by which they mean "anything we want you to hate". Of course, there is religious fundamentalism but that's just to keep the rubes voting for their platform of hyper "capitalism" which is the primary driving force behind the "moral decay of our society" which is, of course, what these asshats claim to be against.
The current administration has concentrated much more and latter part of that, which is why there are soaring deficits and a lot of dissension among the ex-Reaganites that helped elect Bush.
Bush's administration is the direct legacy of Reagan's including promoting torture, support of terrorism in the name of fighting it, spending money they don't have like drunked sailors driving us into debt *and* extremist religious zealots. Christ, the fundamental overriding legacy of the Reagan administration was 9/11 which W and crew ran with in a spree of constitutional ass wiping.
Hate to break it to you but this *is* the Republican platform and has been for pushing 30 years now.
The fact that there are still people spouting nonsense about how the Republican's actually stand for any of that nonsense that they've fought tooth and nail against for 30 years is sad, pathetic and utterly disgusting.
You can bitch and moan about not having choices, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that we're not being forced into a one-or-the-other decision by anyone, no matter how much the two major parties would like it that way.
No, but we are being forced into a one or the other decision by the nature of our system of voting. It's not an absolute 100% thing, but the odds of a third party winning an election are very slim. The odds of there still being 3 relevant parties ten years later even slimmer. Either the new third party will replace one of the existing ones (see the Republicans way back when) or the third party will be swallowed up by one of the other 2.
This has nothing to do with conspiracies. It's an inevitable consequence of the first past the post voting system we have. Yes, the Founding Fathers fucked up profoundly on this particular detail.
Damn, Dude, that has got to be the single funniest thing I have ever read on this site. You should throw in something about tipping the waitress or trying the veal though. Some people might have actually believed that you were serious.
When the Dems and Repubs illegally hold public funded debates and have the other candidates (namely green and lib) arrested for following the law then there is a serious problem. When the media chooses not to comment upon this, there is a more serious problem.
. Bush elder and Reagan, in many ways, were unmatched in our foreign policy. But they had their ups and downs on the home front as well.
I hope you mean unmatched in their utter incompetence? The actual legacy of these pieces of garbage wrapped in skin is CIA involvement in the international drug trade, islamofascism, and 9/11 and the complete destruction of any integrity the US government might have had a claim to with their various torture schools in central America, their policy of supporting brutal dictators over democratically elected leaders and that whole Iran Contra scam. Not to mention, of course, the looting of the S&L industry.
Those were far and away the worst administration(s) in US history up to that point.
There have been three presidents since Reagan. GWB is really the only president we've had since Reagan that even comes close to being conservative
You would have to be dumber than a bag of rocks to consider W the least bit conservative. I mean, sure he hates gays and all that but that's the only conservative issue he's on board with. Clinton was *far* more conservative than Bush All you need to do is look at the deficit and the fact that our military is in Iraq to know that Bush is in no way even remotely similar to a conservative.
Granted the original comparison was pretty silly for the other reasons you gave, but it is also blatantly false as you failed to point out.
As for preferring a liberal approach to national security, let's just say that after Pearl Harbor was attacked I'm glad we didn't sit around wondering if we would offend the Japanese or Germans by taking up arms or think that, by doing so, we'd raise their ire and surmise that we'd be better off not doing anything so that we would be better liked.
So you're glad that we didn't take the Conservative approach and did take the Liberal approach? Maybe your knowledge of history is just really bad. Prior to our entry into WW2, the right wingers (conservatives, industrialists and wealthy elite) were all gung ho Hitler supporters. Heck, W's Grand dad loved Hitler so much that he actively worked with the Nazis all throughout the war. Henry Ford was a tremendous Nazi supporter, most especially in regards to the whole final solution thing. The only people promoting our involvement in the war were the leftists and the Liberals. FDR, in fact, is partially responsible for the pearl harbor attacks since he needed an excuse to convince America to enter the war on the side of the allies. So had we taken the conservative approach, then we would have either sat out the war or we would have jumped in on the Axis side.
After the war, the same people who were rabid supporters of Hitler i.e. conservatives declared an all out war on anything remotely "left" or "Liberal" in order to allow themselves to push this country to where it is today which is pretty much damn near as far to the right as what we fought against in WW2.
Doing nothing to protect ourselves does not guarantee that we will be better liked or that terrorists will be any less offended by our support of Israel or presence in the Persian Gulf.
Right, which is why our current policy of doing nothing to protect ourselves *and* pissing off people who were never any sort of a threat to us puts us squarely on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, it puts us right back in pre WW2 days, except we are the ones who are initiating aggression and conquest and we are the ones demanding a policy of appeasement towards our fascist aggression based on blatant lies, and a populace rabid with religion and largely ignorant of anything outside their borders.
I would assume it controls just about everything from weapons to radar to avonics to HUD. I understand why they want the source as a matter of national defense. They have the right to control or modify the planes as they see fit after purchase. Without the software, it may be impossible. I don't see a legitimate reason to withhold it.
You're talking about two different things here though. You certainly presented many valid reasons that the UK would need the code, but the last sentence is a complete non sequitor. The UK could have all the reasons in the world to need the code, but none of them are reasons for the US to give it to them.
One of the primary reasons, as always, is financial. If they can't modify it, they have to pay US companies to do it. Since WW2, our economy has depended to a large degree on weapons. The Government taxes us to pay for the research and development of all these neat new weapons systems which they then allow private companies to sell all over the world, inciting violence if convenient to boost sales (see Iraq for the most recent example). It really comes down to what Ike warned us about. We have huge sectors of our industry based on socialization of costs and privatization of profits. Allowing anybody, ally, neutral, or enemy an easy way off of the upgrade treadmill wouldn't be economically viable in the sense that election campaign funds would dry up.
I think you should add flashing lights. Maybe one of those fishtank windows.
When I was ordering my new computer I picked everything out and was waiting around until I could justify the purchase to myself. My boss ended up buying it for me (since me geeking out helps the company:-). So we sat down to order it and they were out of the RAM I'd picked out. The only paired RAM they had a vailable in one GB sticks had flashing LEDs on it. So I'm all well...crap... Fine, let's get the goofy RAM.
Turns out the case I ordered has this plastic air conduit to suck the heat off the processor and the video card and spit it out the back. Due to this, if you have the side panel off, lie on the ground, stick your face halfway in the case and tilt your head to the side, you can see a few of the LEDs on one of the sticks of RAM.
This is actually a bit of a relief to me since I was kind of embarassed to be getting such a bling bling machine, but If I actually *wanted* that I'd be pretty pissed at myself for not looking at the case more carefully;-)
Of course, the 6800GT has a "nice" purple glow coming off of it that I didn't see mentioned in the literature either;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, oracle. when did the soviet union cease being a threat to the United States of America? 1973? 1965? 1950? 1945? or 1917? And what level of economic stabilization is required to launch nuclear missiles which will turn this country into a big glass crater and extinguish life from the rest of the planet? When were they no longer capable of that? Or do you believe that they were never capable of it?
I'm really not sure if you're making a concerted effort not to understand my point or what the problem is.
They are still potentially a threat to us even today. Heck, that fact might never change. It also has nothing to do with the point.
In at least the decade prior to the collapse, our assessment of their capabilities, their armament levels and the capabilities of their weapons systems were entirely overblown. This is quite well understood at this point.
So, while it was necessary to maintain a solid military capability, the mad spree of spending our children's money like mad was not necessary.
ah, so Reagan founded islamic fundamentalism. I understand now.....
Of course, that's not what I said either as you well know. He merely funded, organized, trained and armed them. Then when he was done using them he fucked them. So like I said, his policies were *a* direct cause of the rise of islamofascism. Not the only one.
so, who, as an 11 year old, did you know who had intimate knowledge of the SDI program which wasn't christened until a year later.
I've never heard anybody try to claim it was anything besides a joke until the current administration started reviving it other than the loons trying to sell it originally.
Suffice to say, that anyone who's sig promotes the commission of a violent felony because of political party affiliation is an ass to me.
It has nothing to do with the political affiliation. It's the simple fact that anybody who still supports that party at this point in the game has declared war on my constitution, my liberty, and my way of life. By maintaining that affiliation they are stating flat out that they stand for torture, that they stand for the elimination of the bill of rights and that they want to eliminate the constitution and replace it with a fascist theocracy. Mindless denial of those simple facts would be idiotic at this point. Actions speak far louder than words and that is exactly what their actions say. I didn't start this war, but I will damn well defend myself.
I don't care who you are, Murder is Evil.
Actually, in this situation it's a simple case of patriotism and self defense.
but even I realize the most useless piece of equipment in New Orleans would have been a gun. Thanks for the laugh.
But I don't live in New Orleans. Or anywhere they have hurricanes, or flooding for that matter.
I was merely pointing out how one person got her implicit assumption (that we're all far too civilized for things to break down so fast or far) shaken up by the events.
that's the whole point. the rest is revisionist history.
No, not at all. Once upon a time people thought the sun went around the earth. When new facts come to light, a rational person tends to readdress previously held assumptions.
they didn't need a stable economy to launch nuclear weapons at me. all they needed was a stable military infrastructure. which they still had in 1981, and in 1989. But not in 1991 or 1999.
Which is irrelevant to the point that they were nowhere near the level of threat as they were supposed to be at that time.
see his autobiography Grumbles from the Grave (the one published just after his death.
Will do, thanks.
You are saying that these are linked? Sorry, but I'm going to need, if not proof, at least some rationale for why you think that the fall of the soviet union has anything to do with islamic fundamentalism.
The fall of the Soviet Union isn't what is linked to these. The policies of the Reagan administration were a very direct cause of these.
Again, revisionist history.
Again, you don't seem to know what that term means.
It was a joke to some, but not others. In many ways it was a huge intelligence coup. Reports of SDI successes were way overblown and leaked to various KGB sources which made the Kremlin think that it was viable, when some of the ideas for it were pretty ludicrous at best.
Seems like that is pretty far fetched. It was a joke to pretty much everyone I ever talked to except the people pushing the crazy idea that it would work, of course. Their main goal was wasting tax dollars though, so I never put much faith into their babblings.
You, of course, are an ass.
It's certainly been said before, but I'm really not sure what I said in this conversation to provoke that.
Our economy is not bolstered by any of these. in many ways, these hinder our economy.
Well, they certainly shape our economy and bolster the profits of a few industries at the expense of the rest of us. Absolutely they hinder the economy, but that's irrelevant to the few making massive profits off the public dime.
Our economy is based on peace, industry, and commerce.
Yeah, sure it is. When was the last time we had any kind of extended peace? That's a very silly statement since it goes against every relevant fact.
If the US were to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq it would accomplish nothing, as Islamic fundamentalists want nothing less than the withdrawl of all US forces from the middle east, including (but not limited to) Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan. They also what Israel destroyed, but aren't as bad about that as they used to (which could easily change if we actually were stupid enough to comply with their wishes).
Not really sure where that relates to the subject. If we hadn't made up ridiculous fantasies as an excuse to invade Iraq our economy would be doing much better, but then the weapons industry and Haliburton et al wouldn't be reaping huge profits off of our children's backs. Of course it has destabilized the region which will keep another long term conflict going which will enable even more of our money to be siphoned off by the military industrial complex, but that has been a major goal of some ever since the end of the cold war.
I find that the LP is far more concerned in the near term with removing obstacles to economic development and personal liberty than the dismantling of the welfare state.
Were I convinced of this, I'd be much more supportive of them.
They both need to be done, but it's far more urgent to end corporate welfare than to end welfare dependency of individuals.
I agree totally.
Do you have a reference to somewhere the Libertarian Party actually agrees with us on this?
The way I would state that, is that the right wing is libertarian on some issues. Describing Cato as "right-wing" is just the way that the pinkos try to ignore them. The right-wingers try to ignore them by denouncing Cato's opposition to the drug war.
;-)
I find the picture developed here (referred to by the author as the "Rational Spectrum") to be much more illuminating than the standard left/right scale or even the Nolan Chart or Political Compass.
My problem with the Libertarian Party is that they seem to me to be much more gung ho about ripping out the safety net before fixing the problems that it (poorly) addresses.
My wife (British, pretty loony lefty on some topics) and I were watching (on TV) a presentation by the Cato institute about the disparity of wages between men and women. Their point was that there really isn't much of one if everything is taken into account. We were discussing it and she pretty much totally agreed with what the presenter had to say. Her face dropped when I told her who Cato is
Of course when we were watching the Katrina aftermath and how quickly "civilization" deteriorated afterwards. She turned to me and said, "That shotgun I said I'd never live in the same house as....just don't let me see it."
First off, communism is NOT a wonderful idea. At it's heart, it's central planning, and that just doesn't work.
;-)
Not true.
In reality it's about central planning and various really nasty things; gulags and the like. The idea is that the government goes away and it's all blissful anarchy. It's never happened that way primarily due to human nature, but the idea was nice. Much in the same way that Santa Claus is a great idea. The reality is that the malls are crowded around Christmas time
Out of buying a CD or shirt or something, how much goes to the project? Do they have a breakdown?
;-)
My wild ass guess is everything after production and shipping costs.
When you make an order, it goes through their servers, the contact email that you're given goes to one of the team members. I just ordered 3.8 and a T Shirt today
When I ordered 3.5, I emailed to check on the status of the order and was told that they do weekly shipments or something to that affect and that he'd have to run over to the other building to check on it, so I think it's all pretty much in house.
I've been using it for my home firewall for about 8 years now and with CARP being mature now, we're actually looking at replacing our aging failover PIX setup at work with OpenBSD servers for a huge savings even fully supported.
at 14, in 1981, I saw the Soviet Union as a threat.
;-)
;-)
Again with the what you thought back then
As to whether this was a failing of intelligence departments or maliciousness, I don't think it was either. Even if we had concrete evidence of it, NO ONE would have believed it.
Nobody would have believed it because they had been told over and over what a tremendous threat they were. That's a self fulfilling prophecy.
many (including guys like Robert Heinlein) knew that their economy wasn't sustainable
Not sure where the Heinlein reference came from. Was there something specific you had in mind, or was the SciFi reference to get the thread back on topic (free broadband for all
I think that the trigger for unfolding of that threat was neither SDI nor military buildup, but the Cherynobyl. Cherynobyl exposed the underlying weakness in their economic structure in a way that couldn't be papered over with Soviet propoganda.
That was certainly a factor.
I do agree that SDI and the military buildup accelerated things and I feel, to this day that that was a VERY GOOD THING. The chaos in the region we have today, and have had over the last 15 years is a small price for bringing down 75 years of communism.
I, on the other hand, think that 9/11, the Taliban, Islamofascism, CIA involvement in the international cocaine trade, and the arming and training of the terrorists we're fighting now, and the massive expansion of the military industrial complex and the attendant promotion of violence all over the world make the price you mentioned not so small at all.
. By convincing them that pretty soon launching nukes would do no good, we chopped 20 years off their ability to get their economy under control. In fact, I'd say without SDI and Reagan we'd still be talking about the Soviet Union in the present tense instead of the past tense.
Hardly. Star Wars was a joke then and it's not much better now. Although I did just read an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs about the rise of American nuclear primacy which makes a good case that we're near if not already able to launch unanswered nuclear first strikes against Russia and/or China. SDI would only need to pick off a few stragglers if that. That however wasn't the situation then and nobody really believed it was useful at all.
The Soviet economy NEVER really worked. but it was bolstered by a) conquest and b) ruthlessness, and c) fear.
Which, of course, are three things that bolster our economy to this day. Our system has a much better base though. I'd say that the USSR's economy was basically propped up primarily by those while ours is bolstered by them.
Stop blaming one faction of todays government for finally showning you that YOU have no rights anymore. The assault on your civil liberties started two administrations ago.
Heck, it's older than that. It goes back at least to the start of the war on drugs which raped the 4th amendment. It doesn't even really matter which half of The Party was in charge then since both halves have held power since and have done nothing but increase the abuses inherent in any sort of prohibition.
The criticisms of Bush are coming from the Left, coming from the Middle, signifigantly and increasingly coming from the Right.
Even the John Birch Society wants to impeach the treasonous bastard
What Bush is doing is wrong, and frankly he should be in jail. The fact that Clinton may well deserve the next cell over is not an excuse, it's an example of how bad the problem realy is.
Absofuckinglutely.
Just a bit of advice here, sparky: a big part of why people are leaving the democrat faction of the Ruling Party in droves, is precisely the kind of asine vitriol you display here.
Wow, your post is so wrong on so many levels.
In the first place, don't confuse me with a Democrat. Hating anybody who would still support the Republicans at this point in the game is basic common sense, self defense, human decency, and patriotism. It has nothing to do with supporting the "other" party.
People leaving the Democratic party due to asinine vitriol?!? Whoa, dude seriously get a grip on reality. People are jumping off the Democrat ship due to lack of leadership, lack of direction and too much similarity to the Republicans. Show me a person who left the Democrats due to "assinine vitriol" and I'll show you a deluded idiot with a tenuous grip on reality. That's because the Democrats aren't the ones who use that as their primary tool. That would be the Republicans. You know, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilley and the rest of the Right Wing Hate Squad.
Sorry, but pretending that the Democrats are even within an order of magnitude of the Republicans in terms of ignorant hate spewing is just pure insanity.
I saw plenty of cheap shots at Clinton, but they were expressions of disgust rather than calls for murder.
Of course, Clinton wasn't actively engaged in massive treason either.
What a retarded argument:
Durrrrrrrr.. you stole a candy bar and only got a ticket. I burned down a high rise full of people and they want to send me to the gas chamber. Whaaaa Whaaaa life ain't fair.
Seriously, that seems to be your argument.
So, let me get this straight. You are saying that in 1981, the USSR was doomed.
Absolutely.
How old are you? were you even alive in 1981?
I'm 36 which would put me at 11-12 in 1981. Old enough to know that the USSR was *seen* as a tremendous threat at the time which isn't what I'm arguing.
Maybe it was all a sham, but me and the rest of the American Public don't recall it that way.
Like I said, I'm well aware of the common view at the time. I don't know if "sham" is the right word as I think that implies somebody is actively trying to promote a false image. The fact is that our assessments of their capabilities at that time were totally overblown and downright laughable given what we now know.
Whether this was just honest bad intelligence or whether it was malicious as the current "intelligence failures" are isn't something I can say, nor is it really relevant to my point.
Even if you believe Scott Shane, this doesn't answer the question of Why the Soviet Economy was crumbling.
The reasons were numerous although mainly related to how crappy of an economic system they were running. The SDI thing merely accelerated the fall leading to the total disorder we see in that whole region today.
so, care to say that the USSR was going down anyhow? It sure didn't feel like that to me in 1981.
Absolutely it was. Maybe you should pull your head out of 1981 and take a look at the reality 25 years later. Or are you arguing that the USSR was running a healthy sustainable economy and it was only their need to keep up with us on the SDI nonsense that broke their otherwise stellar system?
all that and the downfall of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc.
Yeah, pull the other leg.
That assessment has been so thoroughly routed it's ridiculous. The USSR was going down anyhow. All Reagan managed to do was make it collapse suddenly rather than with any possibility of an orderly transition leading to plenty of missing nuclear material and mob takeover. Oh yeah, and tremendous debt for us and our children.
Do you have any actual positive accomplishments to list or was that old chestnut the best you can do?
The Republicans platform is a mix of classical liberalism (that's right) and religious fundamentalism.
This is only remotely true if by "platform" you mean "the lies they tell idiots who are apparently incapable of telling the difference between what people say and what they do to convince them to keep voting against their own best interests.
The actual Republican platform meaning what they actually do stand for is pure Fascism, extreme authoratarianism and utter blind rabid hatred of "Liberals" by which they mean "anything we want you to hate". Of course, there is religious fundamentalism but that's just to keep the rubes voting for their platform of hyper "capitalism" which is the primary driving force behind the "moral decay of our society" which is, of course, what these asshats claim to be against.
The current administration has concentrated much more and latter part of that, which is why there are soaring deficits and a lot of dissension among the ex-Reaganites that helped elect Bush.
Bush's administration is the direct legacy of Reagan's including promoting torture, support of terrorism in the name of fighting it, spending money they don't have like drunked sailors driving us into debt
*and* extremist religious zealots. Christ, the fundamental overriding legacy of the Reagan administration was 9/11 which W and crew ran with in a spree of constitutional ass wiping.
Hate to break it to you but this *is* the Republican platform and has been for pushing 30 years now.
The fact that there are still people spouting nonsense about how the Republican's actually stand for any of that nonsense that they've fought tooth and nail against for 30 years is sad, pathetic and utterly disgusting.
You can bitch and moan about not having choices, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that we're not being forced into a one-or-the-other decision by anyone, no matter how much the two major parties would like it that way.
No, but we are being forced into a one or the other decision by the nature of our system of voting.
It's not an absolute 100% thing, but the odds of a third party winning an election are very slim. The odds of there still being 3 relevant parties ten years later even slimmer. Either the new third party will replace one of the existing ones (see the Republicans way back when) or the third party will be swallowed up by one of the other 2.
This has nothing to do with conspiracies. It's an inevitable consequence of the first past the post voting system we have. Yes, the Founding Fathers fucked up profoundly on this particular detail.
Our system keeps the crazies out.
ROFLMAO bwahahahah hahahah
Damn, Dude, that has got to be the single funniest thing I have ever read on this site.
You should throw in something about tipping the waitress or trying the veal though.
Some people might have actually believed that you were serious.
When the Dems and Repubs illegally hold public funded debates and have the other candidates (namely green and lib) arrested for following the law then there is a serious problem. When the media chooses not to comment upon this, there is a more serious problem.
Absotively posilutely 100% Fuckin A right.
+500 insightful.
. Bush elder and Reagan, in many ways, were unmatched in our foreign policy. But they had their ups and downs on the home front as well.
I hope you mean unmatched in their utter incompetence?
The actual legacy of these pieces of garbage wrapped in skin is CIA involvement in the international drug trade, islamofascism, and 9/11 and the complete destruction of any integrity the US government might have had a claim to with their various torture schools in central America, their policy of supporting brutal dictators over democratically elected leaders and that whole Iran Contra scam. Not to mention, of course, the looting of the S&L industry.
Those were far and away the worst administration(s) in US history up to that point.
There have been three presidents since Reagan. GWB is really the only president we've had since Reagan that even comes close to being conservative
You would have to be dumber than a bag of rocks to consider W the least bit conservative. I mean, sure he hates gays and all that but that's the only conservative issue he's on board with.
Clinton was *far* more conservative than Bush All you need to do is look at the deficit and the fact that our military is in Iraq to know that Bush is in no way even remotely similar to a conservative.
Granted the original comparison was pretty silly for the other reasons you gave, but it is also blatantly false as you failed to point out.
As for preferring a liberal approach to national security, let's just say that after Pearl Harbor was attacked I'm glad we didn't sit around wondering if we would offend the Japanese or Germans by taking up arms or think that, by doing so, we'd raise their ire and surmise that we'd be better off not doing anything so that we would be better liked.
So you're glad that we didn't take the Conservative approach and did take the Liberal approach? Maybe your knowledge of history is just really bad. Prior to our entry into WW2, the right wingers (conservatives, industrialists and wealthy elite) were all gung ho Hitler supporters. Heck, W's Grand dad loved Hitler so much that he actively worked with the Nazis all throughout the war. Henry Ford was a tremendous Nazi supporter, most especially in regards to the whole final solution thing. The only people promoting our involvement in the war were the leftists and the Liberals. FDR, in fact, is partially responsible for the pearl harbor attacks since he needed an excuse to convince America to enter the war on the side of the allies. So had we taken the conservative approach, then we would have either sat out the war or we would have jumped in on the Axis side.
After the war, the same people who were rabid supporters of Hitler i.e. conservatives declared an all out war on anything remotely "left" or "Liberal" in order to allow themselves to push this country to where it is today which is pretty much damn near as far to the right as what we fought against in WW2.
Doing nothing to protect ourselves does not guarantee that we will be better liked or that terrorists will be any less offended by our support of Israel or presence in the Persian Gulf.
Right, which is why our current policy of doing nothing to protect ourselves *and* pissing off people who were never any sort of a threat to us puts us squarely on the wrong side of the issue.
In fact, it puts us right back in pre WW2 days, except we are the ones who are initiating aggression and conquest and we are the ones demanding a policy of appeasement towards our fascist aggression based on blatant lies, and a populace rabid with religion and largely ignorant of anything outside their borders.
I would assume it controls just about everything from weapons to radar to avonics to HUD. I understand why they want the source as a matter of national defense. They have the right to control or modify the planes as they see fit after purchase. Without the software, it may be impossible. I don't see a legitimate reason to withhold it.
You're talking about two different things here though. You certainly presented many valid reasons that the UK would need the code, but the last sentence is a complete non sequitor. The UK could have all the reasons in the world to need the code, but none of them are reasons for the US to give it to them.
One of the primary reasons, as always, is financial. If they can't modify it, they have to pay US companies to do it. Since WW2, our economy has depended to a large degree on weapons. The Government taxes us to pay for the research and development of all these neat new weapons systems which they then allow private companies to sell all over the world, inciting violence if convenient to boost sales (see Iraq for the most recent example). It really comes down to what Ike warned us about. We have huge sectors of our industry based on socialization of costs and privatization of profits. Allowing anybody, ally, neutral, or enemy an easy way off of the upgrade treadmill wouldn't be economically viable in the sense that election campaign funds would dry up.
I'd love to see the looks on their faces when they realize it only runs in reverse.
Oh come on now, be a little realistic here.
The French have been around for some time and they've actually officially been involved in some wars. Plus technology and engineering are widespread.
There are far too many real life situations the French can picture themselves in to allow such sloppy design at this point in the game.
Say, the enemy comes up behind them. Obviously reverse isn't going to help them run away in this situation.
Heck, I'm neither a military strategist nor a naval designer and I managed to come up with that one. I'm sure there are a bunch more.
I wonder what that Plan B could B.
More Harriers? LOL
Well, if by "Harriers" you mean "Cowbell", then sign me up!
I doubt many people would stop calling it LAMP if it included FreeBSD instead of Linux,
Oh come on, that would be BS-DAMP. Amusingly enough, it would also demonstrate that the "BSD is dying" trolls are all wet.
I think you should add flashing lights. Maybe one of those fishtank windows.
:-). So we sat down to order it and they were out of the RAM I'd picked out. The only paired RAM they had a vailable in one GB sticks had flashing LEDs on it. So I'm all well...crap... Fine, let's get the goofy RAM.
;-)
;-)
When I was ordering my new computer I picked everything out and was waiting around until I could justify the purchase to myself. My boss ended up buying it for me (since me geeking out helps the company
Turns out the case I ordered has this plastic air conduit to suck the heat off the processor and the video card and spit it out the back. Due to this, if you have the side panel off, lie on the ground, stick your face halfway in the case and tilt your head to the side, you can see a few of the LEDs on one of the sticks of RAM.
This is actually a bit of a relief to me since I was kind of embarassed to be getting such a bling bling machine, but If I actually *wanted* that I'd be pretty pissed at myself for not looking at the case more carefully
Of course, the 6800GT has a "nice" purple glow coming off of it that I didn't see mentioned in the literature either