As I said in the previous thread, the reason they had to brief the Bushman is that this proves, beyond any un-reasonable doubt, and in this case all doubt was obviously unreasonable, that Saddam had WMDs. Saddam, being accustomed to the sandy environments, obviously hid them on Mars, and this is irrefutable proof. I mean, solid rocket fuel! It's not like you can make liquid rocket fuel in the desert! That's why they call it a desert, duh!
I have information from lowly placed, and utterly reliable (at least compared to the highly placed) sources that given the newly discovered WMDs on Mars, the Bushman and his trigger happy friends are now well along with their plans to bomb Ulan Bator. A city with such a weird name obviously has to be conspiring with the Axis of Evildoers, currently comprised of North Korea, Iran, Syria and Mars. Since it has such a weird name it can't actually be on the Axis it self, so, along with Belgium it has been placed on the Coalition of the Evil Wishers, the people who supply the Axis of Evildoers with transportation to Mars and Waffles for their troops of Evilmongers.
I must say that the deductive reasoning put into use by terjeber does away with the need for such a pair of data points all together.
I'd love to see the reasoning behind this.
Maybe then, we can take steps towards preventing humanity from suffering the fate of the countless races that came before us, eradication.
Unlikely. The most likely cause of life eradication is a massive astronomica event. I am not talking about tiny stuff like a huge asteroid slamming into us while we are looking in the wrong direction, that's a puny little thing we can actually deal with. I am thinking more about a big black hole in the middle of our galaxy currently relatively nice, but not forever. If it starts feeding in any serious amount, the accretion disk will probably emit enough energy to make our lives relatively uncomfortable, to put it like that. Any near-by, that is basically anywhere in our galaxy, gamma ray burst would probably also extinguish most life on earth, though not completely sterilize it. Humans would be gone for sure. That includes any human colonists on their way to, or already in, any near-by solar system.
There are probably many other events that we currently do not know about that can cause significant damage to organic material on our planet. The Universe in general, and galaxies in particular, are insanely hostile to life.
This, by the way, is the easiest arguments against the religious nuts claiming this universe was created by some dude who wanted to keep life in it. If it was, the dude was a complete retard or insanely evil. So, Christians have a few choices. Their God is either a complete incompetent retard or he is absurdly evil, or, which is the more likely option, he doesn't exist outside of the human psyche.
The problem with the quote from the Drake Equation is that it doesn't stress enough the difference between an observation of life on Mars where the two life forms are very different.
If life formed on Mars independently from life on Earth that means that life in the Universe is extremely common or omnipresent in areas conducive to life. If it formed on Earth and Mars from the same source, then Mars is not a new data point in reality. The only thing we would learn from the second situation is that life is hardier than we thought.
as we haven't encountered intelligent life yet it stands to reason that there is something out there that is stopping intelligent life from spreading and mapping the stars and encountering us
If life came to be on Mars independently we know for sure that life as such is commonplace in the universe. It is probably omnipresent in systems that supports it. Thus far he is right. The problem is with intelligent life. Intelligent life takes a while to develop. Even if a system supports life it might not support it for long enough to intelligent life to come in to place. A black hole in the center of the galaxy that hiccups every few million years can prevent that, but would still allow for non-intelligent life to be crated over and over and over and over...
It may even be that intelligent life is quite commonplace, but that no galaxies are stable for long enough for this intelligent life to develop to the point of interstellar travel. Time's a bitch.
I wouldn't be surprised if the following was a reasonable description of the universe
Life is rare as a rule. Interstellar space doesn't support it, and the majority of galactic real-estate is extremely hostile to life.
Life as such in the zones of galaxies that supports life, like the outer areas of the arms of spiral galaxies, is not only commonplace, it is omnipresent. Everywhere it can, life arises.
Complex life forms are also commonplace, less so than simple life forms obviously. So, there are cows, sheep and chimps all over the place.
Intelligent life requires significant more stability, even the Earth only barely had it, man was almost wiped out on a couple of occasions. Intelligent life is therefore quite rare.
Galaxies and galactic real-estate that supports life for long enough to support life until it becomes inter stellar are very, very rare. I doubt even our own galaxy is that stable, but we'll see (but we might not notice, a big gamma-ray bust would be instantly fatal and we might never see it coming). So, interstellar travel is rare enough that even galaxies teeming with intelligent life do not have interstellar travel.
Galactic neighborhoods stable enough for a species to develop intergalactic travel might not exist or they are so rare as the chance for it to develop is exactly zero. So,
In short, life may be omnipresent and intelligent life may be very common, it still doesn't mean that interstellar travel is. We may have a lot of potential friends out there, but may never meet them.
2 data points in this humongous universe isn't going to be very significant
The funny thing is that you are exactly wrong. You have the data, and you explain to us that you have the data, but you interpret it exactly opposite of what it is.
Life in livable parts of the universe is either very rare or it is very common, it is unlikely that it is something in between. If it is rare, it is extremely rare since so few areas of the universe can support life. Even our own galaxy, which is a rather peaceful place, can only support organic life in a very limited zone in the outer spirals.
So, why are you exactly wrong? If life is rare, ss the data set grows (or the universe becomes more humongous) the chances of finding life on any random planet drops off fast. If you assume that the universe is close to infinite, the chance of finding life on any one planet is exactly zero. Yup. You got it. EXACTLY zero. Now, the universe isn't infinite, but it is damned close to it for practical purposes, so finding life on any random planet is as close to zero as you can get. For any practical math, it IS zero.
Now do you see the significance of finding life on Mars?
If life on Mars developed independently of life on Earth, then that proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that life is basically omnipresent where it is supported.
One data point says nothing. Two data points says everywhere.
Now, if life on Earth and Mars is linked, that tells us something else significant, namely that life is hardier than first thought. It means it can survive for a long period in a fairly hostile environment (vacuum, extreme radiation etc). That would also imply that life can exist in far more places than we thought.
...all the WMDs that Sadddam had, he had them stashed away on Mars.
The entire world is shaking now, they all know for sure that whatever country The Bushman is talking about next will be accused of ferrying Saddam's WMDs to Mars and thereby a part of the Axis of Evildoers. I have it on high authority that the most likely candidates are, in a particular, but very secret, order - Belgium, Ecuador, San Marino, Togo, Bhutan and Sweden.
Currently the Bushman is strategizing with his buddies trying to find out which of these are most easily reached by bombers. Obviously, whichever is more convenient to bomb must be the guilty party. God in is infinite retardedness wouldn't have created the latest country to join the Axis of Evildoers in an inconvenient location. So, whichever is closer to our bombers it is - res ipsa loquitur
Currently, the number of planets we know have ever sustained life is one.
Think of it this way, so far life has evolved on every single planet we have observed, and it has evolved in almost every single nook and cranny on that planet. From the poles to the insides of active volcanoes there is life. Our observational data so far would indicate that life evolves everywhere where a few basic minimum parameters are within range.
Face it: we have no meaningful data at all on how widespread life is in the universe, and there is no realistic prospect that we will get it any time in the foreseeable future. What this means is that speculation on the existence of intelligent alien life can only be just that: speculation
Not quite. We observe intelligent life in the universe. We have also observed a vast variety of life in a huge variety of systems such as below-freezing and at or near boiling temperatures. This tells us that life, in our observation area, is incredibly common, absurdly resilient to intra-planetary environment variations and tends to crop up all the time.
Unless you can find a compelling argument for the fact that the rest of the Universe is vastly different from our observed Universe, it is more reasonable to assume life exists everywhere than that it is incredibly rare.
- intelligent life is very rare or very fragile and volatile in our universe
Depends on what you mean by rare and fragile. It isn't that fragile compared to many other things, but to something like a gamma ray burst it is fragile. I would say that it is seems plausible that life and intelligent life is not only possible, it might be incredibly common. It is just that on regular intervals the universe hiccups and kills all life in huge areas, for example, like all life in a galaxy. This happens on such regular intervals that no species will ever exist long enough to conquer a galaxy. Our conquering of our near-planet space is probably also relatively rare. The Milky Way has been nice and quiet for an unusually long time.
- the guy is right and they are already here and among us (maybe they are criminals hiding on a primitive planet)
Improbable. In fact more so than the possibility of this guy having Alzheimer's.
- interstellar distances are simply to big to be overcome, or no one wants to pay for the energy
Doesn't seem likely. We can do some temporary cost analysis, and the cost isn't prohibitive in any way. Well, not for a civilization a little more advanced than ours any way. It seems reasonable that we will advance just a little more, and that if we are left alone we will probably conquer interstellar space. And then the black hole at the center of our galaxy wakes up. Does a minor Hiccup and goes back to bed. That hiccup sterilizes or galaxy though, tearing all organic molecules apart. Oooops. Sorry. Indigestion. Just swallowed a couple of neutron stars and didn't have any antacid close by. Sorry.
- evil alien predators are already on their way to blow us out of the sky before we become serious competitors
Improbable. All experience show that competitive cooperation is more profitable then warfare. It seems unreasonable to assume that a space faring civilization with interstellar capabilities has not discovered this.
- we live in a zoo and are just being watched
A definite possibility, but again, this seems a little less likely. The cost of such an operation (big "blanket" around our observation space) probably would be cost prohibitive. If we are in such a zoo, this would not be the only or the first, so the cost of doing this would be astronomical, even considering the size and the resources of the Universe with a reasonable assumption about resource utilization.
- everything is just a big illusion, and our reality is only virtual
Irrelevant. We have to deal with reality as we see and experience it.
It chills me to the core to think that there's no Others out there.
I would not go as far as to say that there is nobody out there, but there are probably extremely few "body" out there. The universe is extremely hostile to life, and the fact that life has reach the level of sophistication it has on earth seems like a huge miracle.
A vast number of galaxies out there are not conducive to life at all, and if at all, only for very short periods of time each time. There are massive events that will sterilize entire galaxies occurring all the time in our universe, and the amazing thing is not that they occur, but that none of them have been occurring in our neighborhood for long enough for us to develop space travel.
The Fermi paradox is an interesting puzzle. Given our current rate of expansion humans will make our mark in this entire galaxy in a relatively short space of time (Universe wise). In fact, in such a short space of time that when Galileo first peered through his Telescope what he should have seen was a big Neon sign saying: Welcome humans. Today we have a two-for-one sale on intergalactic space ships. One big one with all the training you need to run it and understand the Universe as such, and the only thing we want in return is the right to mine your moon. Assuming of course there is some sort of law governing that gives humans the right to mine the moon, and them the need to purchase it from us, even if we are barely sentient.
The fact that Galileo didn't see big neon signs is a good indication that there are severe impediments to significant space travel. It is either prohibitively cost wise, it is impossible, or there are events happening in the galaxy with regular intervals that resets the clock so that no civilization ever has been able to develop far enough to start interstellar travel (not talking about intergalactic here).
It isn't difficult for us to imagine interstellar travel, and even make some (extremely tentative) cost estimates. It isn't cost prohibitive. Also, it seems it should be technically possible, even at relatively low speeds, say 10% of the speed of light. Speeds we should be able to achieve in the not too distant future (again, relative). That leaves us with a big nasty universe killing us. Since we know this happens all the time, it is reasonable to assume that it will happen to us too, and that it already has happened to a number of space faring civilizations in this galaxy.
Get ready for the next big sterilization event. It is guaranteed to be nasty.
The problem with alien abductions is that it has cultural bias. The "aliens" treat their kidnap victims very differently depending on where they come from and what cultural background they have.
The only alien abductees that are probed anally, lifted out of their bedrooms through the window etc, are American abductees. Mexican abductees are treated completely differently. In Europe and Africa there are almost no abductions at all etc.
Alien abductions take place in one place, and in one place only. Inside the abductees head.
This is a lot of postings for a story that should have had the title: Even old astronauts can get Alzheimer's.
Now why would you want to add water to water? That doesn't do anything. Or, as the brits say, american beer and making love in a canoe: Fucking close to water.
you just gave every single muslim and catholic country in the world the right to attack the US and US citizens
I can see where one could argue that this gives these people the right to attack the US government.
Easy. You gave them the right to go to war against the US. In war there it is generally accepted that civilians will be targets, though typically, for both strategic and humanitarian reasons, civilian casualties are kept at a minimum. There clear exceptions, for example when bombing civilian targets will demoralize the attacking part. The US and allies, for example, conducted extensive bombing of purely civilian targets in Germany during WWII. This probably ended the war sooner than if we had stuck to military and industrial targets.
So, by giving them the right to attack us militarily, you gave them carte blanche to attack both military, industrial and civilian targets in the US.
I think you're still stuck in this idea that all citizens are morally obligated to defend their government, regardless of whether that government's actions are morally right.
I have not, I have never said that they are obliged to attack US citizens, only that they have the right to do so, a right granted to them by you. They should defend their country against a foreign invader.
You also morally gave any US citizen who assist in future terrorist attacks on US soil a "get out of jail" card
No, I didn't.
Yes, in fact you did. You also did it again, implicitly, in this posting. What you are saying is that if I am an Afghan and I don't like my government, it is OK for me to collaborate with an invader of my country, in this case the US. You do see that this is what you are saying, right? So, if I was a red in the 1970s, and I hated the Nixon government, it would be OK if I collaborated with the Soviets when they invaded? If not, please explain how the two situations differ.
In the past, most terrorist attacks have targeted civilians in an attempt to spread fear throughout the general population.
That is also an accepted, but slightly frowned upon, part of warfare. Some examples: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London, Berlin.
Exactly. And if you recognize that the actions of your government are morally wrong and that it is time to remove that government from power, then you are morally obligated to do so.
The problem is that you really are not thinking through the consequences of what you are saying. You just made it perfectly OK for any US citizen in the 1970s to collaborate with the Soviets during an invasion of the US. That is treason no matter how you look at it.
To collaborate with a foreign invading power to overthrow your government, whether that government is moral or amoral is treason. Always. No exceptions.
On the ballot preferably, at the point of a sword as a last resort. If your government chooses to support those who attack another country (as the Taliban supported Al Qaeda's attack on the US),
Again, thinking through the consequences of what you are saying is not your strength. In the '60s and '70s we attacked a number of countries and in the early '80s we supported a military coup against the de-facto government of Afghanistan (who had asked the Soviets for help). In all of these instances you have now given any US citizen the right to collaborate with our enemies if they tried to invade us.
It is quite simple, collaboration with a foreign invading power that tries to overthrow the current government of your country is treason, no exceptions. No matter what you think of your government. Even the people who tried to kill good old Adolph back in the day were committing treason. For a good cause, but treason all the same.
then you must realize that the time for diplomacy i
Interesting comment. Have you always suffered from these hallucinations or is it recent? Given that you clearly know how to read and write, the fact that you can read that into what I wrote has to be attributed to hallucinations.
Are these hallucinations a result of excessive drug usage, or are they a result of a medical condition?
Ah, but being prisoner of war grants you a lot more rights than the right to being released after the war. None of which are granted to the people at GITMO.
Bzzzt! Wrong! If your country were ruled by a government that supports the mass murder of thousands of civilians
The fact that you just gave every single muslim and catholic country in the world the right to attack the US and US citizens fails to register with you, doesn't it? You also morally gave any US citizen who assist in future terrorist attacks on US soil a "get out of jail" card. He can justify him self through our governments support of killing thousands of civilians.
The fact that you fail to register that you just gave every European country the right to bomb Washington DC also failed to register.
But your argument that these people were morally obligated to defend a government that supports the murder of civilians is way, way off.
You can agree or disagree with the government, but it is still your government, and you handle that however regime change is handled in your country. On the ballot or at the point of a sword. When a foreign power invades, then you band together with your national foes though and you fight the foreign invader. At least as long as the concept of a country has any meaning to you.
Oh, and in case you are slow. According to Muslim and catholic countries the US kills civilians by the bucket load every year in abortion clinics. According to all European countries the US government murders it's own citizens using the electric chair, lethal injections etc. From their point of view any government since Roe v. Wade and the re-introduction of the death penalty justifies regime change in the US, and you just gave them the right to do so forcefully. You also gave any US citizen opposing these two things the right to collaborate with these forces.
Would you say that a US citizen who assisted Al Quaeda in killing Americans could use the "but we are killing thousands of children" defense?
The whole point of a uniform is that it identifies you as a part of and organized military that belongs to a specific country
So, it is your stated opinion that if we fight a regular war against a country that is somewhat backward, let's say like Afghanistan or several places in Africa, it is perfectly OK for us to torture, imprison and do whatever we want to the prisoners of that war just because they traditionally do not wear military uniform the way we define it?
The Taliban never wore uniforms, not because they couldn't afford them or because they didn't like the colors. The Taliban didn't wear uniform in the traditional sense because their culture dictates otherwise. Doesn't mean they are not as close to a regular military though as you can come in those mountains though.
My point is, when we start treating them as scum, they have the right to treat us as scum, and more problematically, we lose the right to complain about it.
This is why you always go out of your way to make sure you have the moral high ground. We never even tried to take any kind of moral ground whatsoever.
The purpose here is solely to make sure what we do is as correct and as morally acceptable as possible. In that way we ensure as much support as possible. In this bungled fuckup of a situation, all the countries who originally supported us wholeheartedly have abandoned that support long ago. The only people that currently support the US are people who expect some monetary reward at the end of it.
What kind of moral authority does the US have today? After GITMO. After Abu Graib? After our mentally handicapped president couldn't tell the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, between Belgium and Somalia. We have none. Whatsoever. How do we go about fixing the problems we are facing when our actions have made us the greatest villain on the planet, even in the eyes of our former allies?
The problem of terrorism can not be fixed by using Tomahawks and Aircraft Carriers. The problem of terrorism needs to be handled by making sure as few as possible in the world wants to kill us, and those few that do want to kill us have little to no support in the general population. We did that very well after WWII, even after having bombed the crap out of Germany they still loved us (eventually).
Since 9/11 we have made a handful of nutcases in some caves in Afghanistan into international martyrs of "the cause". We have made them a viable, and credible enemy of our way of life. They never were, and they still are not, but by giving them the credibility we gave them, in the eyes of the entire world we have lifted them up to a status they are not even close to deserving. When we do that, and in addition to that, in the eyes of the world, behave like the worst bully ever, they get more, not less support.
No individual human being has ever damaged the US as much as our current president. Not only economically, which is a substantial damage, but also by enabling and building the reputation of those who want to destroy us he has caused untold damage to our country. He should go to jail for it. For the rest of his life. And his buddies should go with him.
If the US extends rights to people who don't qualify for them, then there is no incentive for any future opponents to bother treating US soldiers according the to Convention since it won't affect the treatment of their soldiers one way or the other.
It seems like you are trying to imply here that if we give them these rights the chance of them extending these rights to our soldiers is reduced. If that is the case, it is blatantly absurd. There is no reason to think that the Taliban, Al Quaeda or even the Iraqi army would change their behavior based on our behavior. That is not the point. War is about perception. The current perception in the world is that the US is an unruly bully who invades random countries because some lame ass idiot thinks that someone in that country was not ni
And it's the duty of our soldiers to neutralize threats
Absolutely, in war, that is what both parties do. What they never do in war, in civilized countries that is, civilized such as for example in Nazi Germany, is to treat soldiers of war the way the US is treating captives of it's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You never do that simply because for every captive we have at GITMO, one beheading of an American soldier becomes "justified" (please note the quotes, I don't thin they are). That is why warring nations don't do shit like this. Even Germany treated their captives (soldiers) with a reasonable amount of respect. We have now sunk far lower than the Germans of WWII.
but we are well within our rights to whisk him away to the strange island in no-mans-land for the duration of the conflict.
Governed by certain rules, yes. Rules that we have now broken each and every one of. That is why our Repugnican leadership refuses to grant them the rights soldiers have. So that we can break these rules. As a true Republican, the communist nut-jobs currently at the helm in this country make me sick. GITMO is the stuff of old communist regimes. This is the stuff the Soviet Union and of the North-Vietnamese government were engaged in. George W. Bush and his Repugnicans has made us sink lower than the communist regimes that treated their own and foreign citizens like this. We are supposed to be better, but after GWB, we are worse since we are, as they were not, ostensibly a democracy fighting for individual freedom.
as proscribed by the Geneva Conventions
Which is why the Repugnicans are fighting so hard to make sure that the GITMO prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
wearing uniforms, being under the command of officers and carrying your weapons openly -- how many of the Taliban fighters really meet any those requirements?
I'd say the vast majority of them probably. What is a uniform? In Afghanistan it was a turban, shoes and some sort of garment. They were, by any standard, soldiers and we treat them worse than war criminals.
The Geneva Conventions were never intended to be applied to those that refuse to follow the laws and customs of war.
And this is where you just ran into serious trouble. You see, when we broke the Geneva Convention, and we have done that, it no longer applies to our soldiers in the field. This means that the torture and beheading of our soldiers is justified by our actions. That is why you, as a civilized country always abide by the rules. When you do, the other guy loses his moral authority and becomes a criminal. By breaking the Geneva Convention we became the criminals and our soldiers are now justifiably, in our enemies views, humiliated, tortured and killed.
You and I both know that our soldiers would still be tortured and beheaded if we stuck to the Geneva Convention. Our breaking it didn't make that shit happen. It just justified it to anyone living outside of the US. That is the problem with breaking the rules. Once you break them they no longer apply to you.
The Taliban was only recognized by two or three other nations as I recall
Ah, but you are forgetting one important piece here. If I am one of the people inside Afghanistan who recognizes the Taliban as my leaders, then the moral obligation lies with me, irrespective of what other countries say. That makes me a just soldier for my country and thereby easily, if we are going to be rational about it, covered by the Geneva Convention.
Again, the problem is one of strict adherence, not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the law. Unless you do so you have lost the moral high ground and anything goes. Since we decided to cede the moral high-ground from day one, we lost the entire war in the eyes of the entire world.
We all love to talk like we live in some oppressive state with spies behind every door just waiting to pounce on us, torture us, and/or put us away in some unknown prison for the rest of our lives. But in reality, this just doesn't happen here.
Well, actually, that is not true. It does happen here, and over the past few years it has happened to a lot of people, the vast majority innocent. The problem is that you limit your view to US citizens, and that is absurd. GITMO is filled with people who have been kidnapped, tortured, abused and "vanished" by our government, and the fact that they are "fereigners" doesn't make that less so.
Sure, there are some non-citizens at Gitmo, but I happen to believe that most, if not all, were actively plotting against this country
Then you are either outrageously ignorant, stupid or both. Probably in conjunction with a healthy dose of paranoia. The majority of the people at GITMO probably had no clue where the US is let alone how to "plot against" it. Most of them were some sort of soldier in the Afghan version of an "army" when we invaded.
Now, let's investigate that a little. Let's say you are a citizen of Afghanistan. Let's say you have a gun. For the argument let's assume you are of a fundamentalist religious persuasion, in other words, you are a fundamentalist muslim. All of that is fine in most countries. Nothing particularly bad about it. Let's, for arguments say that we are talking about two people here, you and your brother. Your brother is a member of the Taliban armed militia, the closest Afganistan of 2001 comes to a standing army. You are just a regular citizen, but you are good with a gun.
Now, let's assume a foreign power invades. Let's call that foreign power USA. Let's assume they do so for their own reasons and that they are not invited by the current government of Afghanistan.
Your brother, what is his duty then? As a member of the Taliban militia? It is his duty to shoot every american soldier he sees. On sight. It is his duty to kill as many of them as he can. If he can't kill them it is his duty to capture them. That is his duty. Should we punish him for performing his duty? Shall we whisk him away to a strange island in no-mans-land, torture him, deprive him of all his legal rights just because he performed his duty?
Now, let's get back to you. You are a guy with a gun. A foreign power has (illegally according to your laws) invaded your country. What should you do (as opposed to your legal duty)? What is your moral obligation? Your moral obligation is to shoot every fucking American soldier you see. On sight. That is your moral obligation and if you don't stand up and defend your country against this invasion you are a coward. Should you go to jail, be tortured and deprived of all human rights for not being a coward?
I totally supported, and still support, the US invasion of Afghanistan. Of course I do. That doesn't mean that I don't realize that it is every Afghan man and woman's right, and moral duty, to fight the invader though. If you do cooperate with the invasion force you are (technically, morally, legally) a collaborator. Now, you might be a collaborator for "the good side" but you are still a collaborator and a traitor of your country. The fact that your side won doesn't change that post-fact.
Holding the prisoners at GITMO is legally insane, morally absurd, and it only serves one single purpose - it turns us into the bad guys and everybody else into the good guys. That is too absurd for words.
Nonsense, H.264 is more than capable of storing full-length movies on a dual-layer DVD at 720P with very good quality.
The core of the matter here is the last part of your quote, namely the definition of "very good quality". I have watched a wide variety of movies with a wide variety of bitrates. Many movies will work perfectly fine in HD at bitrates of about 7Mb/s - which is what you can fit on a DVD-9. A lot of them will not.
Also, movies that look fantastic on my 17" laptop and 20" PC monitor look like crap on my 46" TV.
If you don't believe me go find a hardcore movie pirate who pirates HD movies (or just check a public bittorrent tracker and look at the file sizes), most 720P movies will fit on a DVD. 1080P movies would be pushing it on longer movies, but even then 90 minute movies would easily fit on one disc and look fantastic.
Movies like Ice Age and other animation will look really good, regular movies with a lot of movement will look OK and difficult encodes, that is movies with a lot of contrast, movies that have scenes with several light-sources in high-contrast scenes etc will look terrible. It depends.
My favorite example is the Shakira concert Blu-Ray, it is the only concert Blu-Ray I have, but I have the trailer for it, encoded at 7Mb/s and I have the Blu-Ray. When I watched the trailer it looked quite fine. When I compared it to the Blu-Ray I realized that the trailer in fact looks like crap. It's all relative.
As an example, the 1080P pirate of Casino Royale is a little over 12GB, but that's a 150 minute long movie.
OK, my new motherboard, CPU and RAM is coming tomorrow, and I'll try to find the Casino Royale HD bittorrent. I own the Blu-Ray. I will give it a quick review when I have downloaded it (which will probably take some time), but I'll keep this until I have it and I'll post the review here.
Now I'm not saying that it'll be videophile level video, but it'd be competitive in terms of quality with the downloadable HD movies available nowadays on iTunes and Xbox Live, and if people are willing to buy those maybe a cheap physical disc format that doesn't require downloading for hours and hours would actually work.
I have no doubt that consumers are willing to forgo the quality of a good 1080p encode to save a buck. I don't think they will fall for Toshiba's BS again though. If Tosh doesn't release a Blu-Ray player before this years holiday season, they are nuts.
Ho Chi Minh did, and asked the US for help very early on.
Come on, do you believe in fairy tales too? Yes, Ho Chi Minh asked Truman for help, but not to create a democracy in Vietnam, he asked for help to get rid of the French so that they could create a communist state. Given that he was one of the founding members of the French Communist Party, it wasn't very likely that Truman was going to support him over the French.
Again, reality is a lot more sensible to be tuned into than bizarre fairy tales. Your "democratic" Ho Chi Minh spent most of his (politically) formative years in the Soviet Union and China. That doesn't bode well for a democratic mindset.
As for Isreal, you have bought a bit of bullshit there.
I have bought into bullshit? You just tried to paint Ho Chi Minh as a democrat, bullshit is your only food.
Freindly relations between Palestinian Muslims, Jews and Christians was the norm in the 1930s.
It was? Wow. You must be one of those guys who knows a lot, you know, of stuff that never happened and you seem to ignore what actually happened. In 1925 the "Palestinian" population staged it's first major general strike as a protest against the British. There had been a lot of unrest prior to this, all of it directed at the British. The "Palestinians" took the strike into full-blown riots, killing 133 Jews and wounding many, many more. This was by no means the first such riots, in 1920 hundreds of random Jews were targets of violence from the Arab side, 5 died.
That was the start of Arab aggression towards Jews in Palestine, but it didn't stop. In fact, it hasn't yet stopped.
These continuous attacks, attacks that killed hundreds of Jews, were the sole reason that the UN committee decided that a two-state solution was the only thing that could secure the Jewish minority in the region.
At least according to older Palestinian Jews I have spoken with. The British were heavily involved, although didn't want to appear to be.
What are you blabbering about now? Of course the British were heavily involved, the British ruled the territory and the British were the main target of Arab violence. Jews were number two. The British killed some 5,000 Arabs between 1936 and 1939 during the Great Uprising. They never had any problem with "appearing to be involved".
Arab terrorism didn't really exist until relatively recently.
Are you joking? Arab terrorism was well established in 1920. It was primarily focused on the British, but the Jews were also a prime target. From 1936 to 1939 (Great Uprising) more than 300 Jews died as direct results of Arab terrorism.
Zionist terrorism was big in the 20s and 30s.
Yes, it was, but Zionist terrorism was directed solely at the British occupation, never at the Arab civilian population. Not until the Arabs started systematic attacks on the Jewis civilian population did Haganah and Irgun start targeting the Arab population. The two organizations still focused mainly on the British though, and far more Jews perished in Arab terror than Arabs in Zionist terror and retribution.
Do you get all your "facts" from listening to old and senile people who lived in the region 75 years ago? At least, that is what you alluded to. I recommend you try to find some more reliable sources of information.
my understanding of the history of Zionism and Isreal is based on writing and conversation with Jews.
In the future I recommend you try a little less hearsay and a little more facts. Your absurd allegation that Great Britain had a hand in the creation of the state of Israel is testament to your astonishing lack of knowledge (given the certainty with which you speak).
I also don't buy Isreali propaganda, so me it looks like a bunch of blood thirsty fuckwits invaded a piece of land they had no claim to
Might have been as bad if the US hadn't intervened, but who is to know?
We know. In fact, Korea is perfect when it comes to comparing. The US tried to intervene in the entire country and kick the communists out. Only 50% success. Half the country remained in the western network, the other half went to the communist side. The one that stayed in the western network, South Korea, is prosperous and good, the one that went to the communists is a horrible place where people are starving to death. Given that we can compare this one 100% apples to apples, it is a great example.
Look at Cuba - they would not have the poverty if they were not under an embargo.
Wow! Talking about knowing and not knowing. Cuba is located in a part of the world were just about every country has been in the shitter. The one that has done by far the best over the past half century is Chile. There is no reason to think that Cuba would have faired any better than any of the other countries in the region. Why do you think they would?
Socialism is extremely popular in central and South America due in large part to resistance to the US,
No, it is popular due to an extreme lack of education in the population and therefore an incredible lack of understanding of how bad some of the policies that are popular are. The Venezuela sponsoring of Gasoline/Petrol is a good example. Very popular. Very bad for Venezuela. Even worse for the world as such.
Vietnam
The US really went against the traditional freedom thing here. They took the side of a colonial power rather than the majority of it's population.
Because the colonial power knew better. Look at how "well" it went in Vietnam, and they can't even begin to blame an embargo.
Because defeating communism is more important than promoting democracy.
Trying to use force to spread democracy is stupid, foolhardy and based on a massive lack of understanding of how humans work. On the other hand, preventing communism in these parts of the world back then required an amount of force. Given that communism has killed more people than all other ideologies combined, preventing it from spreading was maybe not such a bad idea.
What happened? A group that wanted to head towards a socialist democracy,
Which group? In Asia? There were none. The closest you get to an anti-American group with such ideals would be the Sandinista in Nicaragua. They didn't really succeed, and Noriega is now a puppet of the church, but that's another matter. Nicaragua is still the poorest country in the region and not much improvement in sight.
The US gave up any chance of influence by turning to aggression and fucked up so monumentally that I'm surprised you even mentioned it.
Ah, but I didn't mention it as a place where the US did good, I mentioned it as a place where it would have been a lot better for the local population if the US had won rather than lost. We can only look to the neighboring countries that stayed with the west to see the proof. We all know that the execution of the US war in Vietnam was a monumental fuckup, but that wasn't what we were discussing.
Chile
Whether or not the US directly pushed to install Pinochet,
They never did. This is well documented.
whenever the US has moved to oust a foreign leader and succeeded, the resulting government turns out to be as bad or worse for the population
Absolutely not. Pinochet was the best thing to happen to Chile until quite recently. That is why thousands were there to cheer when he returned from Spain. Pinochet singlehandedly kept Chile as the most prosperous and well functioning country in the region, something Chile still reaps the benefits from. Allende was moving full speed ahead into an abyss of mass starvat
Nah, the saddest part of this is that our election system is so easy to comprehend that even someone like you can actually manage to vote. That is the sad part.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said in the previous thread, the reason they had to brief the Bushman is that this proves, beyond any un-reasonable doubt, and in this case all doubt was obviously unreasonable, that Saddam had WMDs. Saddam, being accustomed to the sandy environments, obviously hid them on Mars, and this is irrefutable proof. I mean, solid rocket fuel! It's not like you can make liquid rocket fuel in the desert! That's why they call it a desert, duh!
I have information from lowly placed, and utterly reliable (at least compared to the highly placed) sources that given the newly discovered WMDs on Mars, the Bushman and his trigger happy friends are now well along with their plans to bomb Ulan Bator. A city with such a weird name obviously has to be conspiring with the Axis of Evildoers, currently comprised of North Korea, Iran, Syria and Mars. Since it has such a weird name it can't actually be on the Axis it self, so, along with Belgium it has been placed on the Coalition of the Evil Wishers, the people who supply the Axis of Evildoers with transportation to Mars and Waffles for their troops of Evilmongers.
I must say that the deductive reasoning put into use by terjeber does away with the need for such a pair of data points all together.
I'd love to see the reasoning behind this.
Maybe then, we can take steps towards preventing humanity from suffering the fate of the countless races that came before us, eradication.
Unlikely. The most likely cause of life eradication is a massive astronomica event. I am not talking about tiny stuff like a huge asteroid slamming into us while we are looking in the wrong direction, that's a puny little thing we can actually deal with. I am thinking more about a big black hole in the middle of our galaxy currently relatively nice, but not forever. If it starts feeding in any serious amount, the accretion disk will probably emit enough energy to make our lives relatively uncomfortable, to put it like that. Any near-by, that is basically anywhere in our galaxy, gamma ray burst would probably also extinguish most life on earth, though not completely sterilize it. Humans would be gone for sure. That includes any human colonists on their way to, or already in, any near-by solar system.
There are probably many other events that we currently do not know about that can cause significant damage to organic material on our planet. The Universe in general, and galaxies in particular, are insanely hostile to life.
This, by the way, is the easiest arguments against the religious nuts claiming this universe was created by some dude who wanted to keep life in it. If it was, the dude was a complete retard or insanely evil. So, Christians have a few choices. Their God is either a complete incompetent retard or he is absurdly evil, or, which is the more likely option, he doesn't exist outside of the human psyche.
In my casual rereading of the Drake Equation
The problem with the quote from the Drake Equation is that it doesn't stress enough the difference between an observation of life on Mars where the two life forms are very different.
If life formed on Mars independently from life on Earth that means that life in the Universe is extremely common or omnipresent in areas conducive to life. If it formed on Earth and Mars from the same source, then Mars is not a new data point in reality. The only thing we would learn from the second situation is that life is hardier than we thought.
as we haven't encountered intelligent life yet it stands to reason that there is something out there that is stopping intelligent life from spreading and mapping the stars and encountering us
If life came to be on Mars independently we know for sure that life as such is commonplace in the universe. It is probably omnipresent in systems that supports it. Thus far he is right. The problem is with intelligent life. Intelligent life takes a while to develop. Even if a system supports life it might not support it for long enough to intelligent life to come in to place. A black hole in the center of the galaxy that hiccups every few million years can prevent that, but would still allow for non-intelligent life to be crated over and over and over and over...
It may even be that intelligent life is quite commonplace, but that no galaxies are stable for long enough for this intelligent life to develop to the point of interstellar travel. Time's a bitch.
I wouldn't be surprised if the following was a reasonable description of the universe
In short, life may be omnipresent and intelligent life may be very common, it still doesn't mean that interstellar travel is. We may have a lot of potential friends out there, but may never meet them.
2 data points in this humongous universe isn't going to be very significant
The funny thing is that you are exactly wrong. You have the data, and you explain to us that you have the data, but you interpret it exactly opposite of what it is.
Life in livable parts of the universe is either very rare or it is very common, it is unlikely that it is something in between. If it is rare, it is extremely rare since so few areas of the universe can support life. Even our own galaxy, which is a rather peaceful place, can only support organic life in a very limited zone in the outer spirals.
So, why are you exactly wrong? If life is rare, ss the data set grows (or the universe becomes more humongous) the chances of finding life on any random planet drops off fast. If you assume that the universe is close to infinite, the chance of finding life on any one planet is exactly zero. Yup. You got it. EXACTLY zero. Now, the universe isn't infinite, but it is damned close to it for practical purposes, so finding life on any random planet is as close to zero as you can get. For any practical math, it IS zero.
Now do you see the significance of finding life on Mars?
If life on Mars developed independently of life on Earth, then that proves beyond any reasonable doubt, that life is basically omnipresent where it is supported.
One data point says nothing. Two data points says everywhere.
Now, if life on Earth and Mars is linked, that tells us something else significant, namely that life is hardier than first thought. It means it can survive for a long period in a fairly hostile environment (vacuum, extreme radiation etc). That would also imply that life can exist in far more places than we thought.
...all the WMDs that Sadddam had, he had them stashed away on Mars.
The entire world is shaking now, they all know for sure that whatever country The Bushman is talking about next will be accused of ferrying Saddam's WMDs to Mars and thereby a part of the Axis of Evildoers. I have it on high authority that the most likely candidates are, in a particular, but very secret, order - Belgium, Ecuador, San Marino, Togo, Bhutan and Sweden.
Currently the Bushman is strategizing with his buddies trying to find out which of these are most easily reached by bombers. Obviously, whichever is more convenient to bomb must be the guilty party. God in is infinite retardedness wouldn't have created the latest country to join the Axis of Evildoers in an inconvenient location. So, whichever is closer to our bombers it is - res ipsa loquitur
Currently, the number of planets we know have ever sustained life is one.
Think of it this way, so far life has evolved on every single planet we have observed, and it has evolved in almost every single nook and cranny on that planet. From the poles to the insides of active volcanoes there is life. Our observational data so far would indicate that life evolves everywhere where a few basic minimum parameters are within range.
Face it: we have no meaningful data at all on how widespread life is in the universe, and there is no realistic prospect that we will get it any time in the foreseeable future. What this means is that speculation on the existence of intelligent alien life can only be just that: speculation
Not quite. We observe intelligent life in the universe. We have also observed a vast variety of life in a huge variety of systems such as below-freezing and at or near boiling temperatures. This tells us that life, in our observation area, is incredibly common, absurdly resilient to intra-planetary environment variations and tends to crop up all the time.
Unless you can find a compelling argument for the fact that the rest of the Universe is vastly different from our observed Universe, it is more reasonable to assume life exists everywhere than that it is incredibly rare.
- we are the first
Improbable enough to dismiss out of hand.
- intelligent life is very rare or very fragile and volatile in our universe
Depends on what you mean by rare and fragile. It isn't that fragile compared to many other things, but to something like a gamma ray burst it is fragile. I would say that it is seems plausible that life and intelligent life is not only possible, it might be incredibly common. It is just that on regular intervals the universe hiccups and kills all life in huge areas, for example, like all life in a galaxy. This happens on such regular intervals that no species will ever exist long enough to conquer a galaxy. Our conquering of our near-planet space is probably also relatively rare. The Milky Way has been nice and quiet for an unusually long time.
- the guy is right and they are already here and among us (maybe they are criminals hiding on a primitive planet)
Improbable. In fact more so than the possibility of this guy having Alzheimer's.
- interstellar distances are simply to big to be overcome, or no one wants to pay for the energy
Doesn't seem likely. We can do some temporary cost analysis, and the cost isn't prohibitive in any way. Well, not for a civilization a little more advanced than ours any way. It seems reasonable that we will advance just a little more, and that if we are left alone we will probably conquer interstellar space. And then the black hole at the center of our galaxy wakes up. Does a minor Hiccup and goes back to bed. That hiccup sterilizes or galaxy though, tearing all organic molecules apart. Oooops. Sorry. Indigestion. Just swallowed a couple of neutron stars and didn't have any antacid close by. Sorry.
- evil alien predators are already on their way to blow us out of the sky before we become serious competitors
Improbable. All experience show that competitive cooperation is more profitable then warfare. It seems unreasonable to assume that a space faring civilization with interstellar capabilities has not discovered this.
- we live in a zoo and are just being watched
A definite possibility, but again, this seems a little less likely. The cost of such an operation (big "blanket" around our observation space) probably would be cost prohibitive. If we are in such a zoo, this would not be the only or the first, so the cost of doing this would be astronomical, even considering the size and the resources of the Universe with a reasonable assumption about resource utilization.
- everything is just a big illusion, and our reality is only virtual
Irrelevant. We have to deal with reality as we see and experience it.
It chills me to the core to think that there's no Others out there.
I would not go as far as to say that there is nobody out there, but there are probably extremely few "body" out there. The universe is extremely hostile to life, and the fact that life has reach the level of sophistication it has on earth seems like a huge miracle.
A vast number of galaxies out there are not conducive to life at all, and if at all, only for very short periods of time each time. There are massive events that will sterilize entire galaxies occurring all the time in our universe, and the amazing thing is not that they occur, but that none of them have been occurring in our neighborhood for long enough for us to develop space travel.
The Fermi paradox is an interesting puzzle. Given our current rate of expansion humans will make our mark in this entire galaxy in a relatively short space of time (Universe wise). In fact, in such a short space of time that when Galileo first peered through his Telescope what he should have seen was a big Neon sign saying: Welcome humans. Today we have a two-for-one sale on intergalactic space ships. One big one with all the training you need to run it and understand the Universe as such, and the only thing we want in return is the right to mine your moon. Assuming of course there is some sort of law governing that gives humans the right to mine the moon, and them the need to purchase it from us, even if we are barely sentient.
The fact that Galileo didn't see big neon signs is a good indication that there are severe impediments to significant space travel. It is either prohibitively cost wise, it is impossible, or there are events happening in the galaxy with regular intervals that resets the clock so that no civilization ever has been able to develop far enough to start interstellar travel (not talking about intergalactic here).
It isn't difficult for us to imagine interstellar travel, and even make some (extremely tentative) cost estimates. It isn't cost prohibitive. Also, it seems it should be technically possible, even at relatively low speeds, say 10% of the speed of light. Speeds we should be able to achieve in the not too distant future (again, relative). That leaves us with a big nasty universe killing us. Since we know this happens all the time, it is reasonable to assume that it will happen to us too, and that it already has happened to a number of space faring civilizations in this galaxy.
Get ready for the next big sterilization event. It is guaranteed to be nasty.
The problem with alien abductions is that it has cultural bias. The "aliens" treat their kidnap victims very differently depending on where they come from and what cultural background they have.
The only alien abductees that are probed anally, lifted out of their bedrooms through the window etc, are American abductees. Mexican abductees are treated completely differently. In Europe and Africa there are almost no abductions at all etc.
Alien abductions take place in one place, and in one place only. Inside the abductees head.
This is a lot of postings for a story that should have had the title: Even old astronauts can get Alzheimer's.
Now why would you want to add water to water? That doesn't do anything. Or, as the brits say, american beer and making love in a canoe: Fucking close to water.
Lemonade? Hell no. We have the salt. We have the lime. I'll add the tequila for the greatest party in the history of evoluion!
you just gave every single muslim and catholic country in the world the right to attack the US and US citizens
I can see where one could argue that this gives these people the right to attack the US government.
Easy. You gave them the right to go to war against the US. In war there it is generally accepted that civilians will be targets, though typically, for both strategic and humanitarian reasons, civilian casualties are kept at a minimum. There clear exceptions, for example when bombing civilian targets will demoralize the attacking part. The US and allies, for example, conducted extensive bombing of purely civilian targets in Germany during WWII. This probably ended the war sooner than if we had stuck to military and industrial targets.
So, by giving them the right to attack us militarily, you gave them carte blanche to attack both military, industrial and civilian targets in the US.
I think you're still stuck in this idea that all citizens are morally obligated to defend their government, regardless of whether that government's actions are morally right.
I have not, I have never said that they are obliged to attack US citizens, only that they have the right to do so, a right granted to them by you. They should defend their country against a foreign invader.
You also morally gave any US citizen who assist in future terrorist attacks on US soil a "get out of jail" card
No, I didn't.
Yes, in fact you did. You also did it again, implicitly, in this posting. What you are saying is that if I am an Afghan and I don't like my government, it is OK for me to collaborate with an invader of my country, in this case the US. You do see that this is what you are saying, right? So, if I was a red in the 1970s, and I hated the Nixon government, it would be OK if I collaborated with the Soviets when they invaded? If not, please explain how the two situations differ.
In the past, most terrorist attacks have targeted civilians in an attempt to spread fear throughout the general population.
That is also an accepted, but slightly frowned upon, part of warfare. Some examples: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London, Berlin.
Exactly. And if you recognize that the actions of your government are morally wrong and that it is time to remove that government from power, then you are morally obligated to do so.
The problem is that you really are not thinking through the consequences of what you are saying. You just made it perfectly OK for any US citizen in the 1970s to collaborate with the Soviets during an invasion of the US. That is treason no matter how you look at it.
To collaborate with a foreign invading power to overthrow your government, whether that government is moral or amoral is treason. Always. No exceptions.
On the ballot preferably, at the point of a sword as a last resort. If your government chooses to support those who attack another country (as the Taliban supported Al Qaeda's attack on the US),
Again, thinking through the consequences of what you are saying is not your strength. In the '60s and '70s we attacked a number of countries and in the early '80s we supported a military coup against the de-facto government of Afghanistan (who had asked the Soviets for help). In all of these instances you have now given any US citizen the right to collaborate with our enemies if they tried to invade us.
It is quite simple, collaboration with a foreign invading power that tries to overthrow the current government of your country is treason, no exceptions. No matter what you think of your government. Even the people who tried to kill good old Adolph back in the day were committing treason. For a good cause, but treason all the same.
then you must realize that the time for diplomacy i
Reading was never on the list of your abilities, was it?
Interesting comment. Have you always suffered from these hallucinations or is it recent? Given that you clearly know how to read and write, the fact that you can read that into what I wrote has to be attributed to hallucinations.
Are these hallucinations a result of excessive drug usage, or are they a result of a medical condition?
Ah, but being prisoner of war grants you a lot more rights than the right to being released after the war. None of which are granted to the people at GITMO.
Bzzzt! Wrong! If your country were ruled by a government that supports the mass murder of thousands of civilians
The fact that you just gave every single muslim and catholic country in the world the right to attack the US and US citizens fails to register with you, doesn't it? You also morally gave any US citizen who assist in future terrorist attacks on US soil a "get out of jail" card. He can justify him self through our governments support of killing thousands of civilians.
The fact that you fail to register that you just gave every European country the right to bomb Washington DC also failed to register.
But your argument that these people were morally obligated to defend a government that supports the murder of civilians is way, way off.
You can agree or disagree with the government, but it is still your government, and you handle that however regime change is handled in your country. On the ballot or at the point of a sword. When a foreign power invades, then you band together with your national foes though and you fight the foreign invader. At least as long as the concept of a country has any meaning to you.
Oh, and in case you are slow. According to Muslim and catholic countries the US kills civilians by the bucket load every year in abortion clinics. According to all European countries the US government murders it's own citizens using the electric chair, lethal injections etc. From their point of view any government since Roe v. Wade and the re-introduction of the death penalty justifies regime change in the US, and you just gave them the right to do so forcefully. You also gave any US citizen opposing these two things the right to collaborate with these forces.
Would you say that a US citizen who assisted Al Quaeda in killing Americans could use the "but we are killing thousands of children" defense?
Really? So you would have wanted to be a Soviet POW captured by the Germans on the Eastern Front?
Should have specified allied soldiers.
I'd agree but I don't think using the word "Repubnican" makes for a productive debate or respectful conversation.
I am a Republican. Reagan was a Republican. GWB is no such thing. Neither is McCain. What would you name them?
the Germans lost the protections of the conventions by fighting in a false uniform.
Do you understand the difference between trying to pretend you are a British soldier during WWII, and not wearing a uniform in Afghanistan in 2002?
The whole point of a uniform is that it identifies you as a part of and organized military that belongs to a specific country
So, it is your stated opinion that if we fight a regular war against a country that is somewhat backward, let's say like Afghanistan or several places in Africa, it is perfectly OK for us to torture, imprison and do whatever we want to the prisoners of that war just because they traditionally do not wear military uniform the way we define it?
The Taliban never wore uniforms, not because they couldn't afford them or because they didn't like the colors. The Taliban didn't wear uniform in the traditional sense because their culture dictates otherwise. Doesn't mean they are not as close to a regular military though as you can come in those mountains though.
My point is, when we start treating them as scum, they have the right to treat us as scum, and more problematically, we lose the right to complain about it.
This is why you always go out of your way to make sure you have the moral high ground. We never even tried to take any kind of moral ground whatsoever.
The purpose here is solely to make sure what we do is as correct and as morally acceptable as possible. In that way we ensure as much support as possible. In this bungled fuckup of a situation, all the countries who originally supported us wholeheartedly have abandoned that support long ago. The only people that currently support the US are people who expect some monetary reward at the end of it.
What kind of moral authority does the US have today? After GITMO. After Abu Graib? After our mentally handicapped president couldn't tell the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, between Belgium and Somalia. We have none. Whatsoever. How do we go about fixing the problems we are facing when our actions have made us the greatest villain on the planet, even in the eyes of our former allies?
The problem of terrorism can not be fixed by using Tomahawks and Aircraft Carriers. The problem of terrorism needs to be handled by making sure as few as possible in the world wants to kill us, and those few that do want to kill us have little to no support in the general population. We did that very well after WWII, even after having bombed the crap out of Germany they still loved us (eventually).
Since 9/11 we have made a handful of nutcases in some caves in Afghanistan into international martyrs of "the cause". We have made them a viable, and credible enemy of our way of life. They never were, and they still are not, but by giving them the credibility we gave them, in the eyes of the entire world we have lifted them up to a status they are not even close to deserving. When we do that, and in addition to that, in the eyes of the world, behave like the worst bully ever, they get more, not less support.
No individual human being has ever damaged the US as much as our current president. Not only economically, which is a substantial damage, but also by enabling and building the reputation of those who want to destroy us he has caused untold damage to our country. He should go to jail for it. For the rest of his life. And his buddies should go with him.
If the US extends rights to people who don't qualify for them, then there is no incentive for any future opponents to bother treating US soldiers according the to Convention since it won't affect the treatment of their soldiers one way or the other.
It seems like you are trying to imply here that if we give them these rights the chance of them extending these rights to our soldiers is reduced. If that is the case, it is blatantly absurd. There is no reason to think that the Taliban, Al Quaeda or even the Iraqi army would change their behavior based on our behavior. That is not the point. War is about perception. The current perception in the world is that the US is an unruly bully who invades random countries because some lame ass idiot thinks that someone in that country was not ni
And it's the duty of our soldiers to neutralize threats
Absolutely, in war, that is what both parties do. What they never do in war, in civilized countries that is, civilized such as for example in Nazi Germany, is to treat soldiers of war the way the US is treating captives of it's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You never do that simply because for every captive we have at GITMO, one beheading of an American soldier becomes "justified" (please note the quotes, I don't thin they are). That is why warring nations don't do shit like this. Even Germany treated their captives (soldiers) with a reasonable amount of respect. We have now sunk far lower than the Germans of WWII.
but we are well within our rights to whisk him away to the strange island in no-mans-land for the duration of the conflict.
Governed by certain rules, yes. Rules that we have now broken each and every one of. That is why our Repugnican leadership refuses to grant them the rights soldiers have. So that we can break these rules. As a true Republican, the communist nut-jobs currently at the helm in this country make me sick. GITMO is the stuff of old communist regimes. This is the stuff the Soviet Union and of the North-Vietnamese government were engaged in. George W. Bush and his Repugnicans has made us sink lower than the communist regimes that treated their own and foreign citizens like this. We are supposed to be better, but after GWB, we are worse since we are, as they were not, ostensibly a democracy fighting for individual freedom.
as proscribed by the Geneva Conventions
Which is why the Repugnicans are fighting so hard to make sure that the GITMO prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
wearing uniforms, being under the command of officers and carrying your weapons openly -- how many of the Taliban fighters really meet any those requirements?
I'd say the vast majority of them probably. What is a uniform? In Afghanistan it was a turban, shoes and some sort of garment. They were, by any standard, soldiers and we treat them worse than war criminals.
The Geneva Conventions were never intended to be applied to those that refuse to follow the laws and customs of war.
And this is where you just ran into serious trouble. You see, when we broke the Geneva Convention, and we have done that, it no longer applies to our soldiers in the field. This means that the torture and beheading of our soldiers is justified by our actions. That is why you, as a civilized country always abide by the rules. When you do, the other guy loses his moral authority and becomes a criminal. By breaking the Geneva Convention we became the criminals and our soldiers are now justifiably, in our enemies views, humiliated, tortured and killed.
You and I both know that our soldiers would still be tortured and beheaded if we stuck to the Geneva Convention. Our breaking it didn't make that shit happen. It just justified it to anyone living outside of the US. That is the problem with breaking the rules. Once you break them they no longer apply to you.
The Taliban was only recognized by two or three other nations as I recall
Ah, but you are forgetting one important piece here. If I am one of the people inside Afghanistan who recognizes the Taliban as my leaders, then the moral obligation lies with me, irrespective of what other countries say. That makes me a just soldier for my country and thereby easily, if we are going to be rational about it, covered by the Geneva Convention.
Again, the problem is one of strict adherence, not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the law. Unless you do so you have lost the moral high ground and anything goes. Since we decided to cede the moral high-ground from day one, we lost the entire war in the eyes of the entire world.
War is PR
We all love to talk like we live in some oppressive state with spies behind every door just waiting to pounce on us, torture us, and/or put us away in some unknown prison for the rest of our lives. But in reality, this just doesn't happen here.
Well, actually, that is not true. It does happen here, and over the past few years it has happened to a lot of people, the vast majority innocent. The problem is that you limit your view to US citizens, and that is absurd. GITMO is filled with people who have been kidnapped, tortured, abused and "vanished" by our government, and the fact that they are "fereigners" doesn't make that less so.
Sure, there are some non-citizens at Gitmo, but I happen to believe that most, if not all, were actively plotting against this country
Then you are either outrageously ignorant, stupid or both. Probably in conjunction with a healthy dose of paranoia. The majority of the people at GITMO probably had no clue where the US is let alone how to "plot against" it. Most of them were some sort of soldier in the Afghan version of an "army" when we invaded.
Now, let's investigate that a little. Let's say you are a citizen of Afghanistan. Let's say you have a gun. For the argument let's assume you are of a fundamentalist religious persuasion, in other words, you are a fundamentalist muslim. All of that is fine in most countries. Nothing particularly bad about it. Let's, for arguments say that we are talking about two people here, you and your brother. Your brother is a member of the Taliban armed militia, the closest Afganistan of 2001 comes to a standing army. You are just a regular citizen, but you are good with a gun.
Now, let's assume a foreign power invades. Let's call that foreign power USA. Let's assume they do so for their own reasons and that they are not invited by the current government of Afghanistan.
Your brother, what is his duty then? As a member of the Taliban militia? It is his duty to shoot every american soldier he sees. On sight. It is his duty to kill as many of them as he can. If he can't kill them it is his duty to capture them. That is his duty. Should we punish him for performing his duty? Shall we whisk him away to a strange island in no-mans-land, torture him, deprive him of all his legal rights just because he performed his duty?
Now, let's get back to you. You are a guy with a gun. A foreign power has (illegally according to your laws) invaded your country. What should you do (as opposed to your legal duty)? What is your moral obligation? Your moral obligation is to shoot every fucking American soldier you see. On sight. That is your moral obligation and if you don't stand up and defend your country against this invasion you are a coward. Should you go to jail, be tortured and deprived of all human rights for not being a coward?
I totally supported, and still support, the US invasion of Afghanistan. Of course I do. That doesn't mean that I don't realize that it is every Afghan man and woman's right, and moral duty, to fight the invader though. If you do cooperate with the invasion force you are (technically, morally, legally) a collaborator. Now, you might be a collaborator for "the good side" but you are still a collaborator and a traitor of your country. The fact that your side won doesn't change that post-fact.
Holding the prisoners at GITMO is legally insane, morally absurd, and it only serves one single purpose - it turns us into the bad guys and everybody else into the good guys. That is too absurd for words.
The core of the matter here is the last part of your quote, namely the definition of "very good quality". I have watched a wide variety of movies with a wide variety of bitrates. Many movies will work perfectly fine in HD at bitrates of about 7Mb/s - which is what you can fit on a DVD-9. A lot of them will not.
Also, movies that look fantastic on my 17" laptop and 20" PC monitor look like crap on my 46" TV.
If you don't believe me go find a hardcore movie pirate who pirates HD movies (or just check a public bittorrent tracker and look at the file sizes), most 720P movies will fit on a DVD. 1080P movies would be pushing it on longer movies, but even then 90 minute movies would easily fit on one disc and look fantastic.Movies like Ice Age and other animation will look really good, regular movies with a lot of movement will look OK and difficult encodes, that is movies with a lot of contrast, movies that have scenes with several light-sources in high-contrast scenes etc will look terrible. It depends.
My favorite example is the Shakira concert Blu-Ray, it is the only concert Blu-Ray I have, but I have the trailer for it, encoded at 7Mb/s and I have the Blu-Ray. When I watched the trailer it looked quite fine. When I compared it to the Blu-Ray I realized that the trailer in fact looks like crap. It's all relative.
As an example, the 1080P pirate of Casino Royale is a little over 12GB, but that's a 150 minute long movie.OK, my new motherboard, CPU and RAM is coming tomorrow, and I'll try to find the Casino Royale HD bittorrent. I own the Blu-Ray. I will give it a quick review when I have downloaded it (which will probably take some time), but I'll keep this until I have it and I'll post the review here.
Now I'm not saying that it'll be videophile level video, but it'd be competitive in terms of quality with the downloadable HD movies available nowadays on iTunes and Xbox Live, and if people are willing to buy those maybe a cheap physical disc format that doesn't require downloading for hours and hours would actually work.I have no doubt that consumers are willing to forgo the quality of a good 1080p encode to save a buck. I don't think they will fall for Toshiba's BS again though. If Tosh doesn't release a Blu-Ray player before this years holiday season, they are nuts.
Ho Chi Minh did, and asked the US for help very early on.
Come on, do you believe in fairy tales too? Yes, Ho Chi Minh asked Truman for help, but not to create a democracy in Vietnam, he asked for help to get rid of the French so that they could create a communist state. Given that he was one of the founding members of the French Communist Party, it wasn't very likely that Truman was going to support him over the French.
Again, reality is a lot more sensible to be tuned into than bizarre fairy tales. Your "democratic" Ho Chi Minh spent most of his (politically) formative years in the Soviet Union and China. That doesn't bode well for a democratic mindset.
As for Isreal, you have bought a bit of bullshit there.
I have bought into bullshit? You just tried to paint Ho Chi Minh as a democrat, bullshit is your only food.
Freindly relations between Palestinian Muslims, Jews and Christians was the norm in the 1930s.
It was? Wow. You must be one of those guys who knows a lot, you know, of stuff that never happened and you seem to ignore what actually happened. In 1925 the "Palestinian" population staged it's first major general strike as a protest against the British. There had been a lot of unrest prior to this, all of it directed at the British. The "Palestinians" took the strike into full-blown riots, killing 133 Jews and wounding many, many more. This was by no means the first such riots, in 1920 hundreds of random Jews were targets of violence from the Arab side, 5 died.
That was the start of Arab aggression towards Jews in Palestine, but it didn't stop. In fact, it hasn't yet stopped.
These continuous attacks, attacks that killed hundreds of Jews, were the sole reason that the UN committee decided that a two-state solution was the only thing that could secure the Jewish minority in the region.
At least according to older Palestinian Jews I have spoken with. The British were heavily involved, although didn't want to appear to be.
What are you blabbering about now? Of course the British were heavily involved, the British ruled the territory and the British were the main target of Arab violence. Jews were number two. The British killed some 5,000 Arabs between 1936 and 1939 during the Great Uprising. They never had any problem with "appearing to be involved".
Arab terrorism didn't really exist until relatively recently.
Are you joking? Arab terrorism was well established in 1920. It was primarily focused on the British, but the Jews were also a prime target. From 1936 to 1939 (Great Uprising) more than 300 Jews died as direct results of Arab terrorism.
Zionist terrorism was big in the 20s and 30s.
Yes, it was, but Zionist terrorism was directed solely at the British occupation, never at the Arab civilian population. Not until the Arabs started systematic attacks on the Jewis civilian population did Haganah and Irgun start targeting the Arab population. The two organizations still focused mainly on the British though, and far more Jews perished in Arab terror than Arabs in Zionist terror and retribution.
Do you get all your "facts" from listening to old and senile people who lived in the region 75 years ago? At least, that is what you alluded to. I recommend you try to find some more reliable sources of information.
my understanding of the history of Zionism and Isreal is based on writing and conversation with Jews.
In the future I recommend you try a little less hearsay and a little more facts. Your absurd allegation that Great Britain had a hand in the creation of the state of Israel is testament to your astonishing lack of knowledge (given the certainty with which you speak).
I also don't buy Isreali propaganda, so me it looks like a bunch of blood thirsty fuckwits invaded a piece of land they had no claim to
Korea
Might have been as bad if the US hadn't intervened, but who is to know?
We know. In fact, Korea is perfect when it comes to comparing. The US tried to intervene in the entire country and kick the communists out. Only 50% success. Half the country remained in the western network, the other half went to the communist side. The one that stayed in the western network, South Korea, is prosperous and good, the one that went to the communists is a horrible place where people are starving to death. Given that we can compare this one 100% apples to apples, it is a great example.
Look at Cuba - they would not have the poverty if they were not under an embargo.
Wow! Talking about knowing and not knowing. Cuba is located in a part of the world were just about every country has been in the shitter. The one that has done by far the best over the past half century is Chile. There is no reason to think that Cuba would have faired any better than any of the other countries in the region. Why do you think they would?
Socialism is extremely popular in central and South America due in large part to resistance to the US,
No, it is popular due to an extreme lack of education in the population and therefore an incredible lack of understanding of how bad some of the policies that are popular are. The Venezuela sponsoring of Gasoline/Petrol is a good example. Very popular. Very bad for Venezuela. Even worse for the world as such.
Vietnam
The US really went against the traditional freedom thing here. They took the side of a colonial power rather than the majority of it's population.
Because the colonial power knew better. Look at how "well" it went in Vietnam, and they can't even begin to blame an embargo.
Because defeating communism is more important than promoting democracy.
Trying to use force to spread democracy is stupid, foolhardy and based on a massive lack of understanding of how humans work. On the other hand, preventing communism in these parts of the world back then required an amount of force. Given that communism has killed more people than all other ideologies combined, preventing it from spreading was maybe not such a bad idea.
What happened? A group that wanted to head towards a socialist democracy,
Which group? In Asia? There were none. The closest you get to an anti-American group with such ideals would be the Sandinista in Nicaragua. They didn't really succeed, and Noriega is now a puppet of the church, but that's another matter. Nicaragua is still the poorest country in the region and not much improvement in sight.
The US gave up any chance of influence by turning to aggression and fucked up so monumentally that I'm surprised you even mentioned it.
Ah, but I didn't mention it as a place where the US did good, I mentioned it as a place where it would have been a lot better for the local population if the US had won rather than lost. We can only look to the neighboring countries that stayed with the west to see the proof. We all know that the execution of the US war in Vietnam was a monumental fuckup, but that wasn't what we were discussing.
Chile
Whether or not the US directly pushed to install Pinochet,
They never did. This is well documented.
whenever the US has moved to oust a foreign leader and succeeded, the resulting government turns out to be as bad or worse for the population
Absolutely not. Pinochet was the best thing to happen to Chile until quite recently. That is why thousands were there to cheer when he returned from Spain. Pinochet singlehandedly kept Chile as the most prosperous and well functioning country in the region, something Chile still reaps the benefits from. Allende was moving full speed ahead into an abyss of mass starvat
Nah, the saddest part of this is that our election system is so easy to comprehend that even someone like you can actually manage to vote. That is the sad part.