But if OS software can save a company money, then there is some value to the company in supporting the development of that software. So that company (say GM for example) might hire some programmers to fix up some critical part of OpenOffice, or maye send some money to some central clearing house that supports OSS projects. This type of behaviour would make some money for the OSS programmers, even if it doesn't create any huge OSS company.
A consultant who can save a company $X should be able to make a living by charging such companies $Y for doing so, as long as Y < X
I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. Except for maybe a few nutcases, who has ever claimed that OSS companies would be making money hand-over-fist?
I think that a large part of the various company failures is that the company participants seem to think that they would be making money hand-over-fist, and based on that made some pretty piss-poor business decisions.
OFten it seems to me as though when people talk about "making money" in Open Source (or in other contexts) they seem to be talking about "making shitloads of money", often with the idea of not doing much work.
Maybe we should refocus our attention on making "reasonable" or "sufficient" amounts of money. Statistically speaking, in most fields, nobody makes the bigs bucks.
In sports there are many many minor league players just scraping by for each major league bazzillionaire. In business, most places are small mom-and-pop (more than 50% of the US ecconomy?) compared to the relatively few McDonalds out there. Maybe Open Source is a bit different in that it is virtually impossible for there to be even this many (or any?) BIG winners - but that doesn't mean that everyone is thus forced to be a "looser".
It seems as though there are lots of opportunity for making a living with creation, support, etc. of Open Source solutions to various people's problems. And in fact there are a lot of people making decent livings providing those services.
Re:Doesn't seems like a bad deal after all
on
The Guts Of An iPod
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, now some Windows users can "feel the pain" just like Mac and Linux people have been feeling for years when support for some nifty thing is not offered. Maybe it is some sort of "justice":-)
Anyhow, it seems likely that the supply of the components might be a little tight for a while, so it makes sense to set the price high and sell it to the faithfull for a little while, before dropping the price and making it more widely available. It does Apple no good to make it available for Windows or at a low price but then not be able to meet the demand. Much better to hold off and make it available to Windows and/or drop the price later when the supplies grow.
Then again, they already sell a number of very nice things such as their LCD monitors that will not (easily) work on anything other than a modern Mac. Why should this be any different? If you want one I suppose you can hack your own support into your system of choice, eh?
I don't know that this is completely correct. There are warnings on the tapes I own saying that I am not allowed to show them in a commercial venue. And I know that if I start to play my CD's as a DJ at a dance I am supposed to fork over some royalties. Heck, I think I am supposed to fork over some royalties if I just have the radio playing in my Hamburger Shoppe.
Re:Don't trust the skeptics...
on
All Hallow's Eve
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I seems to me that most of the reviews of the literature on lunar effects turn up biases in most of the studies that show the effects.
If you take your data from the wrong couple of years and you find if your full moons occur disproportionaltely on weekends, is it that surprising that there are more hospital visits? Drunks and partiers are always doing wierd stuff on weekends. Since there are only a dozen or so full moons in a year, it is hard to get sufficient data to even out statistical effects such as this.
Cecil Adams has a couple articles on some of these things such as
crazies and full moons and for a discussion of
blue moons.
Anyway, the study sighted took place over two years, which is about 24 months. No mention was made about the effect of day of the week which is probably only the first effect to control for. Do people go out hunting more often when the moon is full due to the better lighting? Are more people outside at night on those dates? Are people more likely to go to the hospital on these dates for some reason even if the biting rate doesn't change on these dates?
The fact that the author makes statemets like "Human behaviour is altered during the full moon period" after saying that the studies are contradictory and then goes on to say that their study adds "Animals have an increased propensity to bite humans during the full moon periods" (at best they have shown that more people come to the hospital with animal bites in these periods). These types of conclusions do not fill me with confidence in any of the other work.
"Place all in file" just doesn't work - anyone with a major investment in photographic archives requires more than a couple of boxes in the basement. Negative take up room and if you want them to last need some good environmental controls too. So it doesn't seem like film is necessarily any better in this respect.
News organisations and photographers may indeed choose to keep archives of all photos they take no matter how useless for their purposes, especially as storage becomes cheaper and cheaper - but that decision will be an intentional act of charity rather than one of practical self-interest as it is now.
Well, storage space and care for negatives isn't free, and people have to take intentional actions to properly perserve analogue images.
But that is a behavioural problem, not a problem with the technology. People have learned not to toss their negatives, and I suspect most journalists have learned not to toss their digital origionals.
What fraction of non-digital photos taken are not stored, or stored poorly?
For the digital world, it doesn't need to be a problem. It seems like there is a simple soultion - make a practice of not deleting the images. Just like you consiously made the decision to not throw out your negatives.
It seems like pretty much of a non-issue. The historical record we now have is one built up from people who were anal enought not to toss their negatives. I imagine that a large enough population exists who are anal enough not to toss their digital originals to "protect" us from this loss of history.
I habitually download from the camera, and toss about one out of every twenty images - those that are out of foccus or have obvious unrecoverable flaws. I then archive the remainder. Working with copies I then crop, splice, colour balance, etc. the images I want to use, and archive the results. Burn to CD, repeat as necessary.
When I upgrade to DVD, I'll transition my CD's to the new format, just like I transitioned all of the floppys to CD's. Repeat as necessary.
If I want a print, I can get the photofinisher to make me a photographic print which is a photographic print, whith whatever that lifetime might be. If I want to print on an inkjet, when that fades, I can make another print to replace it.
But once you've recognized this problem (and it has been recognized) you just make sure that who ever is in charge of your archives is responsible enough to transition to whatever the new format is every few years.
You can still find 8" floppy disks, so hire someone today to transition all of that data onto DVD's. Put a note into your reminders file to update the archives to the next "Great new thing" in another five years. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Re:Can we suck up to Big Brother even more?
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Then all I ask of these people that feel that America has done wrong by them is to immediately cease all contact with American foreign aid and American products.
Oh pishaw!
If you think the only people to feel that the USA has made errors are those to whom we give foreign aid, then you are very wrong. Many friends, allies, partners and even (as Bush recently called Canada) "family" have been critical of the USA's policies in any number of areas. Cut off trade with all of them and the USA will be hurt pretty bad too.
And there are many people in the USA who have felt that the USA has had bad foreign policy - it is their DUTY to speak out.
There is something mighty wrong with a country if it cannot handle dissent, and in general the USA is perfectly able to do so. This is one of its strengths. Unfortunately, one of its weaknesses is a tendancy to give little weight to the opinions of those outside the country.
There was no excuse for the atrocity of 9/11/01 nor was America in *ANY* way responsible for the terrorist attack.
There was no excuse for the atrocities committed by Germany in WWII, but the whole rise to power of the Nazis probably wouldn't have happened if the Great Powers had not imposed the terms for peace that they did after WWI. Avoiding the rise of problems such as these should be at least part of our foreign policy. Behaving in such a manner that a minimal number of people feel that such actions against the USA are justified might not be such a stupid idea.
This was an act of hate and America was the victim of the crime. Its like blaming a woman for being raped because of the clothes she wore.
This is true. But when a rape is reported and the crime is investigated, it is possible that you might find out that the victim is responsible for other unrelated crimes. What do you think happens then? Surprise, surprise, the "victim" might be brought to justice too. Just because the USA was the victim of a nefarious deed does not automatically whitewash all past and future misdeeds that the USA was or may be involved in.
What sort of responsible citizen would ever want their government to not act in a fair, just, equitable manner whenever possible?
Re:Nothing new under the sun
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
I just wouldn't be able to agree that promoting everyone to tolerate everything is a good idea.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that. There are however quite a large number of things that quite a large fraction of the world's population do agree are good, and I think it is worthwhile supporting efforts to promote those ideals.
Often however, I do feel that people have a tendancy to let the "perfect" (ie some given ideal such as those laid out in the bible) be the enemy of the "good" (ie some subset of the ideal, such as access to health care). There is much good that can be accomplished, even by people who disagree on what might be perfect.
Re:Can we suck up to Big Brother even more?
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
You are right, it is so unethical to feed the world, assist other countries in times of natural/unnatural disaster, provide medical treatment for the world, defend weak nations against rogue nations, etc. Its amazing how often people completely refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming good that comes out of America. I don't understand what perverse thrill you must get to hate your country and your home.
Your point that the USA has done enormous good is valid. In many instances, the USA has selflessly acted worldwide and helped millions of people.
If you can't understand why people would be upset with the many instances where the USA has not acted in the most honorable manner, I don't know how I can help communicate that to you. In some sense, the great social/ethical/moral successes of the USA act to make the failings more painful.
If you found out that your parents were cheating on their taxes, or your brother was embezzeling from his company, or your sister was cheating on her spouse, or your grandfather stole lollypops from infants, wouldn't you be a bit ashamed? Would you feel less ashamed if you were a rich, powerful, and generous family that was active in the local community and was kind to small animals?
I don't get a "thrill" from my fealings about the country. And I don't "hate" the USA. But my pride in the country is lessened by some of its actions. Even if one thinks the USA is the greatest country in the world, the fact that it could be so much greater in so many ways makes me dissapointed. I don't understand why some people have such difficulty in being critical of their own governments. I do not deny the good that is done in my name, why do so many deny the bad that is done in theirs?
If America is so horrible and evil, why hasn't the UN moved out?
'cause then they'd never get their back dues?:-) Actually, I think we paid up quite a bit in the last few years, are we "in good standing" yet?
Re:Nothing new under the sun
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Well, just because we are failable doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying, and I would suggest that we are better off encouraging even "humanists" to try to succeed in these sorts of things than trying to discourage them.
Aditionally, since we can never know the true thoughts and motivations of anyone, we can only know their words and deeds. (Heck, I have trouble enough figuring out my own thoughts and motivations!) Presumably God does have this knowledge and acts and judges accordingly. Thus it is certainly possible that many of those perceived to be "humanists" are directly working towards "God's plan". Discouraging others from trying to do good deeds cannot be a great idea.
Re:Nothing new under the sun
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
So why would we want to try and "all get along"?
Umm, because that's what Jesus seemed to be trying to teach us to do?
If your point is that trying to dominate the world is not a good idea, I could agree with you, but if you say we shouldn't be trying to acheive worldwide peace, harmonoy, and justice, I think that you are fundamentally wrong.
Re:Can we suck up to Big Brother even more?
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
I want to live in a Representative Republic...Its not the Government's role to "distribute" technology that is the marketplace's job...
But what if everyone else in the neighbourhood, city, state, country, or world, does not want to live in such a social setup? Where are you then?
Not because of our bravado but because of the lack of motivation to be what America has become -- a social, economic, military and cultural powerhouse. No American should hold their head in shame for that.
It is the lack of ethical growth, particularly outsde of the country's borders, that causes us to be ashamed.
I paraphrase: "We hold these truth's to be self evident, that man was created with certain unalienable rights..." Yet often we show little respect for the rights of those outside our borders. If tomorrow we woke up and the enire world were one big USA - how much current USA foreign policy would be struck down as unconstitutional? If we delt with local politics in California like we have delt with the mid-east, could we get away with it?
Actually, I was referring to these very things in my post.
My mistake, I misread. However, I am not certain that your list accurately reflects what "they" have said their motivations are. It seems more like the sort of motivations that people come up with in forums such as this.
Do we have any good sources for "their" stated motivations and goals? It does seem pretty stupid of "them" that they are not being very efficitve of communicating their demands. How can we give them what they want if they don't tell us?
In in the future, certainly need to realize what conditions lead to the spread of terrorism. But in our current situation, that's water under the bridge.
I disagree in that I see in our current actions things that I suspect are the seeds of future problems. Have we fairly targeted the Taliban (heck, I don't even know if we have fairly targeted Bin Laden, though I suspect that we have)? Is bombing the best way to act from the viewpoint of not giving rise to more terrorists? Is there a better way of supplying aid to the area?
Right now, someone has to lose and someone has to win.
When did "right now" start? Sept 11 or when bombs starting falling over Afghanistan? Was it a better idea to postpone the military activity? Are there any other options now?
There are tonnes of good questions that can be asked at this late point of time. Questions who's answers would be useful to know.
But blaming terror on some kind of social injustice created by global capitalism is not the answer.
But not examining social injustices, whatever their causes, is plain silly.
Yes, as long as we retain our sovereignty and don't turn that over to a multi-national body. I think it would dangerous to allow a multi-national organization like the U.N. to have final say in matters of law and of military over the U.S. We have the longest running democracy of any nation, and it works.
I guess that at least partially depends on how you define "democracy". Heard of the Magna Carta?
But I digress... I think that there certainly are some dangers in moving towards a more global government, but there are/were similar dangers when the various states decided to become the USA.
At some point people have to get over the idea that they are the most important person around and recognize the rights and needs of others. The USA has done pretty well at doing this within the confines of its borders. We recognize that even if everyone in town things things should be run in some manner, the sate government/courts can overrule them (with various limitations), who in turn can be overruled by the federal system. We generally think of this as a good thing.
I see no reason why this can not and should not be applied at a higher level. Of course there need to be limits and checks and balances and all that sort of thing, but there is no fundamental reason why this could not work in a fair and managable manner.
I know what we've done in the middle east, what our policies were and what they are now--and none of it is really all that bad. Not perfect, but not that bad... I wouldn't hate the US if I were living there.
I'm sorry? You know what we've done, yet you list only three things? How about support for the Shaw of Iran? How about support of other repressive regeims in the area? How about perceived unfair ecconomic priciples? I don't have that much knowledge about the region, but even I know that there are more complaints than women driving trucks without veils (neither the women or the trucks:-).
Heck, some fellow from China donates big to Clinton and everyone has a hissey fit, yet people can't understand why people in the mid-east might be upset with the USA's foreign policy?
Do you have similar knowledge about the USA's policies in Central America? Are you having difficulty understanding why many people there think the USA should burn in the pits of hell?
Head on down to the library and pick up a few books on the recent history of the region. You'll be suprised what policies have been followed in the persuit of oil and teh defense from "communism".
Did we ask why Hitler hated Jews? No. Would it have helped? No.
People do ask this type of question, but you are right that such understanding probably would not have been of much benifit in dealing with Germany after the outbreak of hostilities, or even after the seizure of power by the Nazis.
Unless you were asleep in high school history class (perhaps we should blame the US school system?) however, you should recall the large amount of thought that has gone into the treatment of Germany by the international community after WWI and how that led to the conditions that made WWII quite likely.
The world's understanding of some of these issues directly led to the way that Germany, Italy, and Japan were treated after the end of WWII. If the victors of WWII had taken the type of actions taken after WWI (and embodied by the idea that "Nothing but the destruction of all of these will quench their thirst for destruction.") it seems quite possible that the losers of WWII would still be chomping at the bit to destroy/take over the world.
Without learning from the past, we could have been fighting a war in central Europe every twenty years or so.
Could we have handled the end of WWII better? Quite possibly we could have. The war crimes trials in Germany helped to lay blame and bring closure to some very evil actions. Similar trials in Japan were not handled as well, with many responsible people not being held accountable and many evil actions being downplayed by the occupational forces. The internment of Japanese/American and Japanese/Canadian citizens was done very poorly, but the actions after the war were just as bad with no apologies or restitution for a very long time.
We CAN learn from our errors. Such learning CAN have direct positive benifit to us in the future. To refuse to learn the lesson that indescriminate use of power is a dangerous thing is stupidity to the highest degree.
Learning about motivations and history and reprecussions seems to be a "no brainer" to me. Heck, I can even imagine that we might learn that the best course of action is to take the very action that is being proposed by the "kill them all without question" group. The only arguement I can see against such research would be that perhaps it might turn up some unpleasant results. To that I would say that is still worthwhile. Better to know unpleasant truths than to act in ignorance.
Unfortunately, no amount of understanding of *why* on our part will ever convince the people who destroyed the WTC to stop doing it. They don't care if we understand--they want us destroyed.
This may be correct, but understanding could help prevent the future creation of people with this level of fanitical devotion to destruction.
I would hope that we could base our govenrmental policies on something a little more inclusive and mature than we have seemed to in the past. All countries, I think, could do better at being good members of the world community.
Slashdot Mirror
A consultant who can save a company $X should be able to make a living by charging such companies $Y for doing so, as long as Y < X
I think that a large part of the various company failures is that the company participants seem to think that they would be making money hand-over-fist, and based on that made some pretty piss-poor business decisions.
Or move?
Maybe we should refocus our attention on making "reasonable" or "sufficient" amounts of money. Statistically speaking, in most fields, nobody makes the bigs bucks.
In sports there are many many minor league players just scraping by for each major league bazzillionaire. In business, most places are small mom-and-pop (more than 50% of the US ecconomy?) compared to the relatively few McDonalds out there. Maybe Open Source is a bit different in that it is virtually impossible for there to be even this many (or any?) BIG winners - but that doesn't mean that everyone is thus forced to be a "looser".
It seems as though there are lots of opportunity for making a living with creation, support, etc. of Open Source solutions to various people's problems. And in fact there are a lot of people making decent livings providing those services.
Anyhow, it seems likely that the supply of the components might be a little tight for a while, so it makes sense to set the price high and sell it to the faithfull for a little while, before dropping the price and making it more widely available. It does Apple no good to make it available for Windows or at a low price but then not be able to meet the demand. Much better to hold off and make it available to Windows and/or drop the price later when the supplies grow.
Then again, they already sell a number of very nice things such as their LCD monitors that will not (easily) work on anything other than a modern Mac. Why should this be any different? If you want one I suppose you can hack your own support into your system of choice, eh?
If you take your data from the wrong couple of years and you find if your full moons occur disproportionaltely on weekends, is it that surprising that there are more hospital visits? Drunks and partiers are always doing wierd stuff on weekends. Since there are only a dozen or so full moons in a year, it is hard to get sufficient data to even out statistical effects such as this.
Cecil Adams has a couple articles on some of these things such as crazies and full moons and for a discussion of blue moons. Anyway, the study sighted took place over two years, which is about 24 months. No mention was made about the effect of day of the week which is probably only the first effect to control for. Do people go out hunting more often when the moon is full due to the better lighting? Are more people outside at night on those dates? Are people more likely to go to the hospital on these dates for some reason even if the biting rate doesn't change on these dates?
The fact that the author makes statemets like "Human behaviour is altered during the full moon period" after saying that the studies are contradictory and then goes on to say that their study adds "Animals have an increased propensity to bite humans during the full moon periods" (at best they have shown that more people come to the hospital with animal bites in these periods). These types of conclusions do not fill me with confidence in any of the other work.
"Place all in file" just doesn't work - anyone with a major investment in photographic archives requires more than a couple of boxes in the basement. Negative take up room and if you want them to last need some good environmental controls too. So it doesn't seem like film is necessarily any better in this respect.
Well, storage space and care for negatives isn't free, and people have to take intentional actions to properly perserve analogue images.
For the digital world, it doesn't need to be a problem. It seems like there is a simple soultion - make a practice of not deleting the images. Just like you consiously made the decision to not throw out your negatives.
It seems like pretty much of a non-issue. The historical record we now have is one built up from people who were anal enought not to toss their negatives. I imagine that a large enough population exists who are anal enough not to toss their digital originals to "protect" us from this loss of history.
I habitually download from the camera, and toss about one out of every twenty images - those that are out of foccus or have obvious unrecoverable flaws. I then archive the remainder. Working with copies I then crop, splice, colour balance, etc. the images I want to use, and archive the results. Burn to CD, repeat as necessary.
When I upgrade to DVD, I'll transition my CD's to the new format, just like I transitioned all of the floppys to CD's. Repeat as necessary.
If I want a print, I can get the photofinisher to make me a photographic print which is a photographic print, whith whatever that lifetime might be. If I want to print on an inkjet, when that fades, I can make another print to replace it.
You can still find 8" floppy disks, so hire someone today to transition all of that data onto DVD's. Put a note into your reminders file to update the archives to the next "Great new thing" in another five years. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Oh pishaw!
If you think the only people to feel that the USA has made errors are those to whom we give foreign aid, then you are very wrong. Many friends, allies, partners and even (as Bush recently called Canada) "family" have been critical of the USA's policies in any number of areas. Cut off trade with all of them and the USA will be hurt pretty bad too.
And there are many people in the USA who have felt that the USA has had bad foreign policy - it is their DUTY to speak out.
There is something mighty wrong with a country if it cannot handle dissent, and in general the USA is perfectly able to do so. This is one of its strengths. Unfortunately, one of its weaknesses is a tendancy to give little weight to the opinions of those outside the country.
There was no excuse for the atrocity of 9/11/01 nor was America in *ANY* way responsible for the terrorist attack.
There was no excuse for the atrocities committed by Germany in WWII, but the whole rise to power of the Nazis probably wouldn't have happened if the Great Powers had not imposed the terms for peace that they did after WWI. Avoiding the rise of problems such as these should be at least part of our foreign policy. Behaving in such a manner that a minimal number of people feel that such actions against the USA are justified might not be such a stupid idea.
This was an act of hate and America was the victim of the crime. Its like blaming a woman for being raped because of the clothes she wore.
This is true. But when a rape is reported and the crime is investigated, it is possible that you might find out that the victim is responsible for other unrelated crimes. What do you think happens then? Surprise, surprise, the "victim" might be brought to justice too. Just because the USA was the victim of a nefarious deed does not automatically whitewash all past and future misdeeds that the USA was or may be involved in.
What sort of responsible citizen would ever want their government to not act in a fair, just, equitable manner whenever possible?
I certainly didn't mean to imply that. There are however quite a large number of things that quite a large fraction of the world's population do agree are good, and I think it is worthwhile supporting efforts to promote those ideals.
Often however, I do feel that people have a tendancy to let the "perfect" (ie some given ideal such as those laid out in the bible) be the enemy of the "good" (ie some subset of the ideal, such as access to health care). There is much good that can be accomplished, even by people who disagree on what might be perfect.
If you can't understand why people would be upset with the many instances where the USA has not acted in the most honorable manner, I don't know how I can help communicate that to you. In some sense, the great social/ethical/moral successes of the USA act to make the failings more painful.
If you found out that your parents were cheating on their taxes, or your brother was embezzeling from his company, or your sister was cheating on her spouse, or your grandfather stole lollypops from infants, wouldn't you be a bit ashamed? Would you feel less ashamed if you were a rich, powerful, and generous family that was active in the local community and was kind to small animals?
I don't get a "thrill" from my fealings about the country. And I don't "hate" the USA. But my pride in the country is lessened by some of its actions. Even if one thinks the USA is the greatest country in the world, the fact that it could be so much greater in so many ways makes me dissapointed. I don't understand why some people have such difficulty in being critical of their own governments. I do not deny the good that is done in my name, why do so many deny the bad that is done in theirs?
If America is so horrible and evil, why hasn't the UN moved out?
'cause then they'd never get their back dues? :-) Actually, I think we paid up quite a bit in the last few years, are we "in good standing" yet?
Aditionally, since we can never know the true thoughts and motivations of anyone, we can only know their words and deeds. (Heck, I have trouble enough figuring out my own thoughts and motivations!) Presumably God does have this knowledge and acts and judges accordingly. Thus it is certainly possible that many of those perceived to be "humanists" are directly working towards "God's plan". Discouraging others from trying to do good deeds cannot be a great idea.
Umm, because that's what Jesus seemed to be trying to teach us to do?
If your point is that trying to dominate the world is not a good idea, I could agree with you, but if you say we shouldn't be trying to acheive worldwide peace, harmonoy, and justice, I think that you are fundamentally wrong.
But what if everyone else in the neighbourhood, city, state, country, or world, does not want to live in such a social setup? Where are you then?
Not because of our bravado but because of the lack of motivation to be what America has become -- a social, economic, military and cultural powerhouse. No American should hold their head in shame for that.
It is the lack of ethical growth, particularly outsde of the country's borders, that causes us to be ashamed.
I paraphrase: "We hold these truth's to be self evident, that man was created with certain unalienable rights..." Yet often we show little respect for the rights of those outside our borders. If tomorrow we woke up and the enire world were one big USA - how much current USA foreign policy would be struck down as unconstitutional? If we delt with local politics in California like we have delt with the mid-east, could we get away with it?
My mistake, I misread. However, I am not certain that your list accurately reflects what "they" have said their motivations are. It seems more like the sort of motivations that people come up with in forums such as this.
Do we have any good sources for "their" stated motivations and goals? It does seem pretty stupid of "them" that they are not being very efficitve of communicating their demands. How can we give them what they want if they don't tell us?
I disagree in that I see in our current actions things that I suspect are the seeds of future problems. Have we fairly targeted the Taliban (heck, I don't even know if we have fairly targeted Bin Laden, though I suspect that we have)? Is bombing the best way to act from the viewpoint of not giving rise to more terrorists? Is there a better way of supplying aid to the area?
Right now, someone has to lose and someone has to win.
When did "right now" start? Sept 11 or when bombs starting falling over Afghanistan? Was it a better idea to postpone the military activity? Are there any other options now?
There are tonnes of good questions that can be asked at this late point of time. Questions who's answers would be useful to know.
But blaming terror on some kind of social injustice created by global capitalism is not the answer.
But not examining social injustices, whatever their causes, is plain silly.
I guess that at least partially depends on how you define "democracy". Heard of the Magna Carta?
But I digress... I think that there certainly are some dangers in moving towards a more global government, but there are/were similar dangers when the various states decided to become the USA.
At some point people have to get over the idea that they are the most important person around and recognize the rights and needs of others. The USA has done pretty well at doing this within the confines of its borders. We recognize that even if everyone in town things things should be run in some manner, the sate government/courts can overrule them (with various limitations), who in turn can be overruled by the federal system. We generally think of this as a good thing.
I see no reason why this can not and should not be applied at a higher level. Of course there need to be limits and checks and balances and all that sort of thing, but there is no fundamental reason why this could not work in a fair and managable manner.
I'm sorry? You know what we've done, yet you list only three things? How about support for the Shaw of Iran? How about support of other repressive regeims in the area? How about perceived unfair ecconomic priciples? I don't have that much knowledge about the region, but even I know that there are more complaints than women driving trucks without veils (neither the women or the trucks :-).
Heck, some fellow from China donates big to Clinton and everyone has a hissey fit, yet people can't understand why people in the mid-east might be upset with the USA's foreign policy?
Do you have similar knowledge about the USA's policies in Central America? Are you having difficulty understanding why many people there think the USA should burn in the pits of hell?
Head on down to the library and pick up a few books on the recent history of the region. You'll be suprised what policies have been followed in the persuit of oil and teh defense from "communism".
Unless you were asleep in high school history class (perhaps we should blame the US school system?) however, you should recall the large amount of thought that has gone into the treatment of Germany by the international community after WWI and how that led to the conditions that made WWII quite likely.
The world's understanding of some of these issues directly led to the way that Germany, Italy, and Japan were treated after the end of WWII. If the victors of WWII had taken the type of actions taken after WWI (and embodied by the idea that "Nothing but the destruction of all of these will quench their thirst for destruction.") it seems quite possible that the losers of WWII would still be chomping at the bit to destroy/take over the world.
Without learning from the past, we could have been fighting a war in central Europe every twenty years or so.
Could we have handled the end of WWII better? Quite possibly we could have. The war crimes trials in Germany helped to lay blame and bring closure to some very evil actions. Similar trials in Japan were not handled as well, with many responsible people not being held accountable and many evil actions being downplayed by the occupational forces. The internment of Japanese/American and Japanese/Canadian citizens was done very poorly, but the actions after the war were just as bad with no apologies or restitution for a very long time.
We CAN learn from our errors. Such learning CAN have direct positive benifit to us in the future. To refuse to learn the lesson that indescriminate use of power is a dangerous thing is stupidity to the highest degree.
Learning about motivations and history and reprecussions seems to be a "no brainer" to me. Heck, I can even imagine that we might learn that the best course of action is to take the very action that is being proposed by the "kill them all without question" group. The only arguement I can see against such research would be that perhaps it might turn up some unpleasant results. To that I would say that is still worthwhile. Better to know unpleasant truths than to act in ignorance.
This may be correct, but understanding could help prevent the future creation of people with this level of fanitical devotion to destruction.
I would hope that we could base our govenrmental policies on something a little more inclusive and mature than we have seemed to in the past. All countries, I think, could do better at being good members of the world community.
Mac OS X?