Considering they're the cause of the potential military threat from the US, I'd consider such reasoning as circular logic. They cannot justify a response to a situation which their own actions have created.
Exactly!!! And that is the point, the whole concept pre-emptive strikes is based on circular logic. Now you seem to think this logic is only valid for one interation (which is makes no sense if you have the right to pre-emptively defend yourself than the underliying cause of the threat is pretty irrelevant). So lets look at North Korea. You say the first iteration begins with them wanting to build up thier military (included WMD) and because of that they started it only we have the right of pre-emption. But from thier point of view, the most powerful miltary the world has ever known has been sitting on thier doorstep that last fifty years saber rattling and activing disueding reconciliation with the South. So to them this may be the first iteration so they have the right of pre-emption but the US doesn't. Or for Iran, the fact that the US is funding disetent groups with the express goal of over throwing thier government might be the first iteration. Or maybe it was our funding and supplying of Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war that was the first iteration. The whole concept of pre-emption leads to nothing but these rideculous infinate loops of logic and since they are based on pre-emption this logic strucutre also has a built in claw-back mechanisim. So now we've invaded countries after strong warnings. The next time our enemy will have to pre-emptivly strike as soon as those warnings are given (and be justified). So the next time we'll have to attack before we give strong warnings (and be justified), etc, etc, etc. This kind of logic only leads to disaster.
Of course, if Iran or North Korea wishes to engage the United States military in a massive conflict, they're welcome to give it their best shot. You realize, of course, that it is only by the mercy and humanity of the United States that there is anyone left alive in Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; yes?
And this is the other major issue with the policy of pre-emption. That somehow might makes right. So China is an up and coming power with a stated goal of taking back Tiawan. Since we have a treaty with Tiawan, this will quite likely take us to war with a global power. This is certainly a national security threat, so certainly we should preemptively take them out now, before they get too powerful. But they are already pretty powerful and it would be one hell of a mess, so we'll let them go. OK, so if you are a strong nation which threatens us, you're OK but if you are too weak to defend yourselves from us you better be careful.
This logic is nothing short of school yard bully discusting.
If the US were anything like the nations of old in its response to threats, North Korea would glow from space and Iran and Iraq would be layered in burnt shards of glass. Imagine, if you will, if the Romans had nuclear weapons, and what their response to attacks from Carthage would have been.
Yes, we all thank our old US overlords for allowing life to continue on this planet. Isn't it at all troubling to you that anyone should be thanking a powerful country our thier own very continued existance? This is the logic that leads people to fly plans into buildings, not the fact we let women drive cars.
Let me ask you this: with hindsight available, would a pre-emptive stike against Germany by Europe's nations prior to the invasion of Poland be justifiable?
Absolutly NOT justifiable. It wasn't a lack of pre-emption that caused WWII to be the size and scope that it was, it was lack of action by the allies once Germany took action. Germany was to powerful and scared everyone (your thinking about might makes right is much more a culprit here). They didn't want to challange Germany for fear of the results. So they decided taking Poland was OK, just leave me alone. As soon
If North Korea would stop building nuclear weapons and ICBMs while threatning to annihilate Japan, South Korea, and the United States, we wouldn't have to consider pre-emptive military action against them.Well your whole argument seems to boil down to US is good and others are bad. Of course thats ridulous and completely subjective, but lets just look at your support for pre-emptive strikes. So the US is justified in taking pre-emptive action against other nations to avoid possible national security issues right? So if the US is justified in this, we can assume this is a right which all nations share right? OK, so we know pre-emptive strikes are OK if you see potential threats to national security. Now the US has labled North Korea and Iran as part of an "axis of evil" and all options are available to deal with them. Now if I was North Korea or Iran, I'd certainly consider this coming from the worlds most powerful military as a pretty serious threat to my national security. So CERTIANLY North Korea and/or Iran would be 100% justified in pre-emptively attacking the US right? So you fully support North Korea and/or Iran taking such action and defend it as completely justifiable right? No?
You and others seem to be stuck in the 1920s, blissfully secure in the 'knowledge' that no tyrant, no matter how bad, ever hurts anyone any time, and that nothing ever justifies military action anywhere for any reason.
Not at all, but there is a middle ground between not defending yourself and/or your allies and killing anyone who looks at you funny and makes you a bit nervous. I supported the first Gulf War and even Afganistan. Its just the concept of pre-emptively waring with other nations to avoid waring with other nations which I find illocical and unjustifiable.
Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out whenever they thought they were going to find anything. By the time they were ever able to search a building, the Iraqis had had months of time to remove anything that had been there. There were articles about that just about every month in the news, both online and on paper.
OK, first I'll put on my tin-foil hat for just a second. Yes, there were always reports about this by the news organizations. When do you think such news organizations get thier best ratings and circulation? Thats right when they are talking about how the US military is blowing the crap out of stuff or better yet when they can show it live. OK, tin-foil hat coming back off now;-)
Hey, I'm not saying we should have just walked away from Iraq and ignored it, I'm asking why invade and kill so many people (US and Iraqi)? Here (again) is something that wasn't nearly as widely reported on. Leading up to the war, UN inspectors were actually getting great cooperation from Iraq. I don't think there can be any exact time estimates, but many at the time were saying if this level of cooperation remained the inspectors could have finished inspections and issued final reports in perhaps as little as 6 months. Yes, this cooperation in response to the pending US invasion and all the related pressure that caused, but that just show Saddam would respond to this pressure. Why invade when you know you can get what you want by the mere threat and presense of your troops? Keep the troops there to keep the pressure on and let the inspectors finish the job. If Saddam gets out of hand you can then use force to put more pressue on him. Preferably force with as little leathality as possible like the limited air strikes you mention. Then as a last resort if all else fails you always can invade if absolutly requried.
But why invade when we did? They made some lame attempts to tie it to terrorisim, which were dimissed. We now know the intelligence about WMD was sketchy at best and the more we the public find out the more its hard to believe those in the know really belived it themselves. We'd gotten a favorable response from Iraq in working with inspectors to verify all this reguardless. So why invade when we did? I'm left with Bush's own statements about wanting to attempt to turn Iraq into a democracy which might spread through the regin. In that light he couldn't allow inspections to continue for fear they may find Iraq didn't have any WMD and thus remove his last excuse to invade and try his democracy in the mid-east experiement. I don't find that a compelling reason for war. Even if it all works out just like Bush hopes, I don't think the ends justify the means.
The "innocent until proven guilty" is when the person goes to trial. That's not the concern at arrest. So under that scenario and applying Anglo-American criminal law to the Iraqi invasion, there would still be reason for invading and then putting Saddam on trial to sort out the details thereafter.
I guess thats where we disagree. To me invasion of a foriegn country is like the death penalty not like an arrest. I cannot be undone and all the innocent lives lost cannot be broght back. I think Bush's doctine of pre-emptive strikes and unilateral action are VERY dangerous. The last thing I was to see is wars started because of maybes and I think sos. If you go to war I think you better damn well know for sure. Not just kill tens of thousands of people and then "sort out the details thereafter".
If someone goes around carrying something covered-up that looks like a machine gun, refuses to show it to anyone when asked, and gets tackled by police and arrested, it's their own damn fault. Especially if it's someone that broke into a house a while back.
I wouldn't really have a problem with that, but it doesn't really seem a very good fit for what we are talking about to me. With all the inspections and "collateral damage" which comes with an invasion it seems the following would be more fitting.
The guy is known to have been an arms dealer in the past, but every day for a year the police see him carrying this thing which looks like a machine gun and every day the check it and find that it in fact isn't a machine gun. He has also been under constant survalance for the past year and he has never been observed with a gun. Then one day a new rookie cop on the beat (think Dubya), sees this guy with the thing that looks like a gun and asks to see it. The guy is pissed 'cause he gets harrased like this every day and tells the rookie to go eat shit. So the rookie cop sprays down the entire street with gun fire killing tons of innocent people. Then he tackels the guy to arrest him.
Lots of random allegations there. Don't suppose you have any facts to back them up?
I'd say that in most Anglo-American legal jurisdictions, if you have the *intent* to inflict harm/kill someone, you can be charged with that as a crime and receive punishment.
Interesting point. Wouldn't you also say in most Anglo-American legal jurisdictions that there is a presumption of innocense until *proven* guilty? Some Iraqi dissitent who wants to be in power telling you rumors would be hersay and not admissable right? Actual concrete proof should be required before something like... I don't know.. an invasion of a another soverign nation right?
Now obviously, all the legal nicities of the Anglo-American legal systems cannot always fit in international relations like this in reality. However, if you want to use certain parts of such a system as an excuse for invasion are you allowed to just ignore the other parts?
When a nuclear-armed nutcase talks of turning his neighbors's countries into a "sea of fire", and then starts showing off the weapons capable of doing so, then starts developing ICBMs, I think we should take notice.
You mean when people like this say things like this?
I'm not willing to accept that hypothesis, nor the faulty one involving an enlightened Iraq under Saddam's rule that not only had no WMD but also no intent to acquire such technology.
I've always disagreed with the timing of the war in Iraq due to the fact that North Korea is, and has been, a much graver threat to the national security of the US and the stability of the entire region
I'm sorry, but that statement just made me laugh so hard soda almost came out my nose!;-) You must be the American version of a pacifist;-) Your against the war 'cause there is another country you want to blow the hell out of first;-) Man, I'm still laughing;-)
BTW, thought I'd pick apart your post (even though it is irrelevant to my point about need to worry about US use of GPS).
kept up a pretense of having WMD for over ten years
If by "kept up pretense of having WMD" you mean he repeatedly stated he had gotten rid of all the WMD the US gave him and Iraq no longer has any WMD then you may have a point.
and it was Hussein's unwillingness to submit to the UN resolutions to open up his former WMD plants, etc. for inspection that triggered the invasion.
The best rebuttal to this has to be the UN Quarterly report on weapon inspections just before the invasion. Have a read. Not saying Saddam never had some fun screwing with the inspectors, but if the threat of invasion was enough to get him to stop and all this was going forward so well, why invade?
Had the prior Iraqi regime complied without even the months long final warning process (let alone the ten plus years prior), no bombs, tanks, or other assorted objects that go boom would have ever been needed.
According to your own president, this isn't true. Even though they now know there was no WMD, the invasion was still needed because some day Saddam might have decided to maybe make more WMD.
Which means that your point is absolutely invalid in terms of the US acting unilaterally.....
I didn't even realize I was trying to make such a point. I thought I was just pointing out just one recent example of the US doing exactly what you said we don't need to worry about them doing.
George Bush on foriegn policy: When in doubt, whip it out.
Talk about the ultimate terror weapon "country X, give up ________ or our GPS guided weapon will hit elementary school Y", etc., etc. Somehow I don't think that the free world --or even the non-free countries of the world, for that matter -- has much worry that the US military is going to ever do or be allowed to do something like that, do you?
US: "Iraq, give up your WMD or our GPS guided weapons will hit everything".
Iraq: "Dude, We don't have any! You've had people here looking for 10 years! We'd gladly turn them over if we had them but we don't. PLEASE DON'T BOMB US!!!!
US: "Whatever! You have till the count of three! one..two..BAMMMMM!
Nope, your right nothing to worry about. The US would NEVER do anything like that;-)
This isn't really how it works. Everyone (assuming you sell enough machines) can get the same discount pricing reguardless of what all they install. The issue is if you want to market to the majority and have lowest prices possible, you may want to find ways to lower costs below regular volume pricing. You have to remember, Dell, etc don't complain about this. They are the ones who approach MS asking for it. Its basically what can we do to get even lower pricing? Now there isn't much a builder can do besides volume to make supplier give cheaper pricing and they the supplier has to be fair between customers so this is the agreement they made to get cheaper prices. I just don't know what else of value the builders can give in return for this extra low prices.
These choices are made by a very simple formula. Just like software has cost, quality, time to consider but you can only choose two, builders are similar. But instead its price, quality, variety. And that is just the order dell approaches this from. Price is most important, then quality, and then variety. If you don't like that and wish to do business with a company which puts those in a different order, you are free to and there are plenty of them (just not the big boys). But don't think MS is forcing this on builders. The builders ask for this as a way to cut costs. There isn't much they can do in return for this pricing (and remember it is business one side won't give something without something in return), so this concept of per machine pricing even if it isn't installed is what came out in return. Is there something else the builders could give in return? Maybe... I just cannot think of it.
I don't really see the "microsoft tax" as a microsoft issue. NO ONE is forced to pay MS for a computer without MS installed. It just so happens that most tier 1 companies have decided probaby at least 90% of thier customers will want MS installed. With this in mind, minimizing the price per unit of MS is very important to thier bottom line. Now these builders "could" just get basic volume pricing. However in such a competitive markets as PC builders with such low profit per unit today, they do everything they can to maximize profit well keeping thier products priced as low as possible to remain competitive. To do this, they try to get the best pricing possible from major suppliers. In the case of MS they already have good volume pricing so they ask what can be done to get lower pricing. Paying a certain extra low price to MS on every PC sold (MS installed or not) they see as more profitable than tracking each PC and paying a bit more for each copy but only paying for those installed.
This isn't really a MS issue. Its an issue of the builders putting profits and low prices for the vast majority ahead of the few bucks they could save the minority who don't want MS installed. Its just a basic economic decision for these builders, but nothing MS forces upon them. It is the builders choice.
Not very familiar with objective c, but categories do seem interesting. That said, it really seems more a matter of style than function. You can accomplish the same things with inheritance, interfaces, over-riding methods, etc. Doesn't seem anything functionaly is too different, objective c categories just seem a new way to do an old thing, where java/c# use the standard old OOP methods for the same thing.
Now I just did a quick read, so perhaps I'm missing something but that is my take on it.
I'd love to believe the US system of government had enough checks and balances
Yeah, it was designed that way but over the years a two-party system has arisen that tends to remove many of those checks and balances. Here is a quote from George Washington about ANY party system (let alone a two party system). Give it a read its amazing how topical it is today and how he seemed to have an amazing grasp on what would happen.
Sadly, today if the same party controls both congress and executive there is effectivly no checks and balances and when each of the branches is controled by a different party the partisanship means nothing really gets done except finger pointing (though the second is better I guess).
Now not to say better/worse or should/shouldn't but it certainly isn't comforting to me that when congress and president were differnt parties the president was impeached basically for getting a blow job and now when they are the same party it isn't even discussed in the face of domestic spying, setting aside Geneva convetions, unlimited imprisionment without charges, torture, pre-emptive wars, etc, etc.
Obviously, "activist judge" is a dirty word today but I'm a HUGE fan of this. Almost anything the courts do can be undone by the other branches, but when one party controls both other branches the judicuary is the last chance we have for checks and balances. So I say give me more activist judges! They are required to maintain any checks and balances in our current situation. If judges get out of hand, congress can pass new laws on those points to over-ride the judges but that requires passing those laws (bringing whatever topic it is out in the open for discussion and actually having to put thier names down as voting for it).
Al-Qaeda is fine with oppressive and corrupt regimes as long as they are, by Al-Qaeda's criteria
True. But this is equally true of the US. Lets not forget that Al-Qaeda was started, funded, and supported by the CIA during the Soviet's war in Afganistan to fight the communist envasion.
Hey, I'm not saying Al-Qaeda is good. Hell, I think they are probably one of the most horrible organizations in recent history but that just shows how (arguably more so) horrible our actions have been in the region. We created them 'cause at the time we felt is was in our best interest. Now we have to go back and kill tons of innocent people in an effort to stop what we created.
My whole point is this: Your average muslium, arab, or whatever group you want to lump them in didn't just wake up one day see American women driving on Al-Jazera and say "I hate thier freedom!!!! I must go kill them!!!". Its the US's own HORRIBLE policies in the region that earned them that hatred.
And its not like these horrible policies are confined to the past. What gives the US the right to say "we must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? Because of thinking like that how many tens of thousands of innocent muslum, persian, arab, etc have died by US actions so that we might or might not stop an attack which may or may not happen and which if it does may or may not kill a large number of people? Taking such pre-emptive strikes be it for fear, greed, or to "re-shape the region" (huburis) is equally wrong and against everything I thought America used to stand for.
The comparison isn't entirely bogus, it's just skewed to the benefit of F/OSS.
Maybe not a sham, but completely useless. To extend your car example, its like they compared cars by reading the car's brouchure and maybe walking by one. They never got in, they never drove it, etc, etc.
It almost seemed like thier "comparison" consisted of reading each products ReadMe file and then writing an article "comparing" them.
it has said nothing about any 500,000 murdered children. It wants and end to US presence and influence in the Muslim world
And you think the two aren't related? In a nutshell (and in/. format), here is the history of US involvement in the Middle East:
1) Fund/Support corupt and brutal regimes as long as it fits US agenda in the region.
2) Regime breaks from US control.
3) US kills thousands of innocent people in process of "liberating" them from that regime.
4) $Profit
5) Repeat steps 1-4
Ya got me there;-) Didn't read the article (/. shocker of the day), sorry. I guess, the armour they are talking about (still haven't read the article) must be body armour. I'd assumed armour on the vehicle (which wouldn't adversly effect the temp inside). I live where the temp is almost always 80-100 and I have to turn down the A/C. So I didn't see the issue. Thanks for pointing it out. I normally read the articles. Sorry;-)
Err...because that's where the automotive engineers are?
OK, this is true but besides the where its done how 'bout the why its done? I'm sure these liquid cooled vestes are cool and all (no pun intended), but my Hummer has a cooling system which was very cheap and has been tested by millions of others ahead of me and doesn't require me to wear any extra clothing. Its called air conditioning and it works pretty well. I wonder how many millions tax payers are putting up for this, while the solders are digging through junk yards in Kuwait looking for old A/C units? I think no expense should be spared for the troops, but is there really a need for tons for R&D in how to cool a vehicle? Couldn't this be better spent on...I don't know maybe body armour etc?
Sure, the hoses are quick-release, but now he's got yet another layer of clothing on in the desert heat, a layer that probably doesn't help his maneuverability. Perhaps there's a better solution.
Ya know, I've been reading Popular Mechanics and I think in the next hundred years we'll see cooling systems mounted directly inside of the vehicles. These systems will cool the air and then blow it onto the vehicle's occupants. Now I don't suggest these are ready for common use yet, but one day it could be very useful for for are troops in such environments.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering they're the cause of the potential military threat from the US, I'd consider such reasoning as circular logic. They cannot justify a response to a situation which their own actions have created.
Exactly!!! And that is the point, the whole concept pre-emptive strikes is based on circular logic. Now you seem to think this logic is only valid for one interation (which is makes no sense if you have the right to pre-emptively defend yourself than the underliying cause of the threat is pretty irrelevant). So lets look at North Korea. You say the first iteration begins with them wanting to build up thier military (included WMD) and because of that they started it only we have the right of pre-emption. But from thier point of view, the most powerful miltary the world has ever known has been sitting on thier doorstep that last fifty years saber rattling and activing disueding reconciliation with the South. So to them this may be the first iteration so they have the right of pre-emption but the US doesn't. Or for Iran, the fact that the US is funding disetent groups with the express goal of over throwing thier government might be the first iteration. Or maybe it was our funding and supplying of Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war that was the first iteration. The whole concept of pre-emption leads to nothing but these rideculous infinate loops of logic and since they are based on pre-emption this logic strucutre also has a built in claw-back mechanisim. So now we've invaded countries after strong warnings. The next time our enemy will have to pre-emptivly strike as soon as those warnings are given (and be justified). So the next time we'll have to attack before we give strong warnings (and be justified), etc, etc, etc. This kind of logic only leads to disaster.
Of course, if Iran or North Korea wishes to engage the United States military in a massive conflict, they're welcome to give it their best shot. You realize, of course, that it is only by the mercy and humanity of the United States that there is anyone left alive in Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; yes?
And this is the other major issue with the policy of pre-emption. That somehow might makes right. So China is an up and coming power with a stated goal of taking back Tiawan. Since we have a treaty with Tiawan, this will quite likely take us to war with a global power. This is certainly a national security threat, so certainly we should preemptively take them out now, before they get too powerful. But they are already pretty powerful and it would be one hell of a mess, so we'll let them go. OK, so if you are a strong nation which threatens us, you're OK but if you are too weak to defend yourselves from us you better be careful.
This logic is nothing short of school yard bully discusting.
If the US were anything like the nations of old in its response to threats, North Korea would glow from space and Iran and Iraq would be layered in burnt shards of glass. Imagine, if you will, if the Romans had nuclear weapons, and what their response to attacks from Carthage would have been.
Yes, we all thank our old US overlords for allowing life to continue on this planet. Isn't it at all troubling to you that anyone should be thanking a powerful country our thier own very continued existance? This is the logic that leads people to fly plans into buildings, not the fact we let women drive cars.
Let me ask you this: with hindsight available, would a pre-emptive stike against Germany by Europe's nations prior to the invasion of Poland be justifiable?
Absolutly NOT justifiable. It wasn't a lack of pre-emption that caused WWII to be the size and scope that it was, it was lack of action by the allies once Germany took action. Germany was to powerful and scared everyone (your thinking about might makes right is much more a culprit here). They didn't want to challange Germany for fear of the results. So they decided taking Poland was OK, just leave me alone. As soon
If North Korea would stop building nuclear weapons and ICBMs while threatning to annihilate Japan, South Korea, and the United States, we wouldn't have to consider pre-emptive military action against them.Well your whole argument seems to boil down to US is good and others are bad. Of course thats ridulous and completely subjective, but lets just look at your support for pre-emptive strikes. So the US is justified in taking pre-emptive action against other nations to avoid possible national security issues right? So if the US is justified in this, we can assume this is a right which all nations share right? OK, so we know pre-emptive strikes are OK if you see potential threats to national security. Now the US has labled North Korea and Iran as part of an "axis of evil" and all options are available to deal with them. Now if I was North Korea or Iran, I'd certainly consider this coming from the worlds most powerful military as a pretty serious threat to my national security. So CERTIANLY North Korea and/or Iran would be 100% justified in pre-emptively attacking the US right? So you fully support North Korea and/or Iran taking such action and defend it as completely justifiable right? No?
You and others seem to be stuck in the 1920s, blissfully secure in the 'knowledge' that no tyrant, no matter how bad, ever hurts anyone any time, and that nothing ever justifies military action anywhere for any reason.
Not at all, but there is a middle ground between not defending yourself and/or your allies and killing anyone who looks at you funny and makes you a bit nervous. I supported the first Gulf War and even Afganistan. Its just the concept of pre-emptively waring with other nations to avoid waring with other nations which I find illocical and unjustifiable.
Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out whenever they thought they were going to find anything. By the time they were ever able to search a building, the Iraqis had had months of time to remove anything that had been there. There were articles about that just about every month in the news, both online and on paper.
;-)
OK, first I'll put on my tin-foil hat for just a second. Yes, there were always reports about this by the news organizations. When do you think such news organizations get thier best ratings and circulation? Thats right when they are talking about how the US military is blowing the crap out of stuff or better yet when they can show it live. OK, tin-foil hat coming back off now
Hey, I'm not saying we should have just walked away from Iraq and ignored it, I'm asking why invade and kill so many people (US and Iraqi)? Here (again) is something that wasn't nearly as widely reported on. Leading up to the war, UN inspectors were actually getting great cooperation from Iraq. I don't think there can be any exact time estimates, but many at the time were saying if this level of cooperation remained the inspectors could have finished inspections and issued final reports in perhaps as little as 6 months. Yes, this cooperation in response to the pending US invasion and all the related pressure that caused, but that just show Saddam would respond to this pressure. Why invade when you know you can get what you want by the mere threat and presense of your troops? Keep the troops there to keep the pressure on and let the inspectors finish the job. If Saddam gets out of hand you can then use force to put more pressue on him. Preferably force with as little leathality as possible like the limited air strikes you mention. Then as a last resort if all else fails you always can invade if absolutly requried.
But why invade when we did? They made some lame attempts to tie it to terrorisim, which were dimissed. We now know the intelligence about WMD was sketchy at best and the more we the public find out the more its hard to believe those in the know really belived it themselves. We'd gotten a favorable response from Iraq in working with inspectors to verify all this reguardless. So why invade when we did? I'm left with Bush's own statements about wanting to attempt to turn Iraq into a democracy which might spread through the regin. In that light he couldn't allow inspections to continue for fear they may find Iraq didn't have any WMD and thus remove his last excuse to invade and try his democracy in the mid-east experiement. I don't find that a compelling reason for war. Even if it all works out just like Bush hopes, I don't think the ends justify the means.
The "innocent until proven guilty" is when the person goes to trial. That's not the concern at arrest. So under that scenario and applying Anglo-American criminal law to the Iraqi invasion, there would still be reason for invading and then putting Saddam on trial to sort out the details thereafter.
I guess thats where we disagree. To me invasion of a foriegn country is like the death penalty not like an arrest. I cannot be undone and all the innocent lives lost cannot be broght back. I think Bush's doctine of pre-emptive strikes and unilateral action are VERY dangerous. The last thing I was to see is wars started because of maybes and I think sos. If you go to war I think you better damn well know for sure. Not just kill tens of thousands of people and then "sort out the details thereafter".
If someone goes around carrying something covered-up that looks like a machine gun, refuses to show it to anyone when asked, and gets tackled by police and arrested, it's their own damn fault. Especially if it's someone that broke into a house a while back.
I wouldn't really have a problem with that, but it doesn't really seem a very good fit for what we are talking about to me. With all the inspections and "collateral damage" which comes with an invasion it seems the following would be more fitting.
The guy is known to have been an arms dealer in the past, but every day for a year the police see him carrying this thing which looks like a machine gun and every day the check it and find that it in fact isn't a machine gun. He has also been under constant survalance for the past year and he has never been observed with a gun. Then one day a new rookie cop on the beat (think Dubya), sees this guy with the thing that looks like a gun and asks to see it. The guy is pissed 'cause he gets harrased like this every day and tells the rookie to go eat shit. So the rookie cop sprays down the entire street with gun fire killing tons of innocent people. Then he tackels the guy to arrest him.
Lots of random allegations there. Don't suppose you have any facts to back them up?
.. an invasion of a another soverign nation right?
I'd say that in most Anglo-American legal jurisdictions, if you have the *intent* to inflict harm/kill someone, you can be charged with that as a crime and receive punishment.
Interesting point. Wouldn't you also say in most Anglo-American legal jurisdictions that there is a presumption of innocense until *proven* guilty? Some Iraqi dissitent who wants to be in power telling you rumors would be hersay and not admissable right? Actual concrete proof should be required before something like... I don't know
Now obviously, all the legal nicities of the Anglo-American legal systems cannot always fit in international relations like this in reality. However, if you want to use certain parts of such a system as an excuse for invasion are you allowed to just ignore the other parts?
When a nuclear-armed nutcase talks of turning his neighbors's countries into a "sea of fire", and then starts showing off the weapons capable of doing so, then starts developing ICBMs, I think we should take notice.
You mean when people like this say things like this?
I'm not willing to accept that hypothesis, nor the faulty one involving an enlightened Iraq under Saddam's rule that not only had no WMD but also no intent to acquire such technology.
OK, who do we attack next?
I've always disagreed with the timing of the war in Iraq due to the fact that North Korea is, and has been, a much graver threat to the national security of the US and the stability of the entire region
;-) You must be the American version of a pacifist ;-) Your against the war 'cause there is another country you want to blow the hell out of first ;-) Man, I'm still laughing ;-)
I'm sorry, but that statement just made me laugh so hard soda almost came out my nose!
BTW, thought I'd pick apart your post (even though it is irrelevant to my point about need to worry about US use of GPS).
kept up a pretense of having WMD for over ten years
If by "kept up pretense of having WMD" you mean he repeatedly stated he had gotten rid of all the WMD the US gave him and Iraq no longer has any WMD then you may have a point.
and it was Hussein's unwillingness to submit to the UN resolutions to open up his former WMD plants, etc. for inspection that triggered the invasion.
The best rebuttal to this has to be the UN Quarterly report on weapon inspections just before the invasion. Have a read. Not saying Saddam never had some fun screwing with the inspectors, but if the threat of invasion was enough to get him to stop and all this was going forward so well, why invade?
Had the prior Iraqi regime complied without even the months long final warning process (let alone the ten plus years prior), no bombs, tanks, or other assorted objects that go boom would have ever been needed.
According to your own president, this isn't true. Even though they now know there was no WMD, the invasion was still needed because some day Saddam might have decided to maybe make more WMD.
Which means that your point is absolutely invalid in terms of the US acting unilaterally.....
I didn't even realize I was trying to make such a point. I thought I was just pointing out just one recent example of the US doing exactly what you said we don't need to worry about them doing.
George Bush on foriegn policy: When in doubt, whip it out.
Talk about the ultimate terror weapon "country X, give up ________ or our GPS guided weapon will hit elementary school Y", etc., etc. Somehow I don't think that the free world --or even the non-free countries of the world, for that matter -- has much worry that the US military is going to ever do or be allowed to do something like that, do you?
;-)
US: "Iraq, give up your WMD or our GPS guided weapons will hit everything".
Iraq: "Dude, We don't have any! You've had people here looking for 10 years! We'd gladly turn them over if we had them but we don't. PLEASE DON'T BOMB US!!!!
US: "Whatever! You have till the count of three! one..two..BAMMMMM!
Nope, your right nothing to worry about. The US would NEVER do anything like that
they need to bow down to MS's restrictive terms
This isn't really how it works. Everyone (assuming you sell enough machines) can get the same discount pricing reguardless of what all they install. The issue is if you want to market to the majority and have lowest prices possible, you may want to find ways to lower costs below regular volume pricing. You have to remember, Dell, etc don't complain about this. They are the ones who approach MS asking for it. Its basically what can we do to get even lower pricing? Now there isn't much a builder can do besides volume to make supplier give cheaper pricing and they the supplier has to be fair between customers so this is the agreement they made to get cheaper prices. I just don't know what else of value the builders can give in return for this extra low prices.
These choices are made by a very simple formula. Just like software has cost, quality, time to consider but you can only choose two, builders are similar. But instead its price, quality, variety. And that is just the order dell approaches this from. Price is most important, then quality, and then variety. If you don't like that and wish to do business with a company which puts those in a different order, you are free to and there are plenty of them (just not the big boys). But don't think MS is forcing this on builders. The builders ask for this as a way to cut costs. There isn't much they can do in return for this pricing (and remember it is business one side won't give something without something in return), so this concept of per machine pricing even if it isn't installed is what came out in return. Is there something else the builders could give in return? Maybe... I just cannot think of it.
I don't really see the "microsoft tax" as a microsoft issue. NO ONE is forced to pay MS for a computer without MS installed. It just so happens that most tier 1 companies have decided probaby at least 90% of thier customers will want MS installed. With this in mind, minimizing the price per unit of MS is very important to thier bottom line. Now these builders "could" just get basic volume pricing. However in such a competitive markets as PC builders with such low profit per unit today, they do everything they can to maximize profit well keeping thier products priced as low as possible to remain competitive. To do this, they try to get the best pricing possible from major suppliers. In the case of MS they already have good volume pricing so they ask what can be done to get lower pricing. Paying a certain extra low price to MS on every PC sold (MS installed or not) they see as more profitable than tracking each PC and paying a bit more for each copy but only paying for those installed.
This isn't really a MS issue. Its an issue of the builders putting profits and low prices for the vast majority ahead of the few bucks they could save the minority who don't want MS installed. Its just a basic economic decision for these builders, but nothing MS forces upon them. It is the builders choice.
Not very familiar with objective c, but categories do seem interesting. That said, it really seems more a matter of style than function. You can accomplish the same things with inheritance, interfaces, over-riding methods, etc. Doesn't seem anything functionaly is too different, objective c categories just seem a new way to do an old thing, where java/c# use the standard old OOP methods for the same thing.
Now I just did a quick read, so perhaps I'm missing something but that is my take on it.
I'd love to believe the US system of government had enough checks and balances
Yeah, it was designed that way but over the years a two-party system has arisen that tends to remove many of those checks and balances. Here is a quote from George Washington about ANY party system (let alone a two party system). Give it a read its amazing how topical it is today and how he seemed to have an amazing grasp on what would happen.
Sadly, today if the same party controls both congress and executive there is effectivly no checks and balances and when each of the branches is controled by a different party the partisanship means nothing really gets done except finger pointing (though the second is better I guess).
Now not to say better/worse or should/shouldn't but it certainly isn't comforting to me that when congress and president were differnt parties the president was impeached basically for getting a blow job and now when they are the same party it isn't even discussed in the face of domestic spying, setting aside Geneva convetions, unlimited imprisionment without charges, torture, pre-emptive wars, etc, etc.
Obviously, "activist judge" is a dirty word today but I'm a HUGE fan of this. Almost anything the courts do can be undone by the other branches, but when one party controls both other branches the judicuary is the last chance we have for checks and balances. So I say give me more activist judges! They are required to maintain any checks and balances in our current situation. If judges get out of hand, congress can pass new laws on those points to over-ride the judges but that requires passing those laws (bringing whatever topic it is out in the open for discussion and actually having to put thier names down as voting for it).
I'm inorganic you insensitive clod!
Al-Qaeda is fine with oppressive and corrupt regimes as long as they are, by Al-Qaeda's criteria
True. But this is equally true of the US. Lets not forget that Al-Qaeda was started, funded, and supported by the CIA during the Soviet's war in Afganistan to fight the communist envasion.
Hey, I'm not saying Al-Qaeda is good. Hell, I think they are probably one of the most horrible organizations in recent history but that just shows how (arguably more so) horrible our actions have been in the region. We created them 'cause at the time we felt is was in our best interest. Now we have to go back and kill tons of innocent people in an effort to stop what we created.
My whole point is this: Your average muslium, arab, or whatever group you want to lump them in didn't just wake up one day see American women driving on Al-Jazera and say "I hate thier freedom!!!! I must go kill them!!!". Its the US's own HORRIBLE policies in the region that earned them that hatred.
And its not like these horrible policies are confined to the past. What gives the US the right to say "we must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? Because of thinking like that how many tens of thousands of innocent muslum, persian, arab, etc have died by US actions so that we might or might not stop an attack which may or may not happen and which if it does may or may not kill a large number of people? Taking such pre-emptive strikes be it for fear, greed, or to "re-shape the region" (huburis) is equally wrong and against everything I thought America used to stand for.
The comparison isn't entirely bogus, it's just skewed to the benefit of F/OSS.
Maybe not a sham, but completely useless. To extend your car example, its like they compared cars by reading the car's brouchure and maybe walking by one. They never got in, they never drove it, etc, etc.
It almost seemed like thier "comparison" consisted of reading each products ReadMe file and then writing an article "comparing" them.
it has said nothing about any 500,000 murdered children. It wants and end to US presence and influence in the Muslim world
/. format), here is the history of US involvement in the Middle East:
And you think the two aren't related? In a nutshell (and in
1) Fund/Support corupt and brutal regimes as long as it fits US agenda in the region.
2) Regime breaks from US control.
3) US kills thousands of innocent people in process of "liberating" them from that regime.
4) $Profit
5) Repeat steps 1-4
Ya got me there ;-) Didn't read the article (/. shocker of the day), sorry. I guess, the armour they are talking about (still haven't read the article) must be body armour. I'd assumed armour on the vehicle (which wouldn't adversly effect the temp inside). I live where the temp is almost always 80-100 and I have to turn down the A/C. So I didn't see the issue. Thanks for pointing it out. I normally read the articles. Sorry ;-)
Oh boy :-( Don't tell me you are trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Dubya/Dick..that you?
Err...because that's where the automotive engineers are?
OK, this is true but besides the where its done how 'bout the why its done? I'm sure these liquid cooled vestes are cool and all (no pun intended), but my Hummer has a cooling system which was very cheap and has been tested by millions of others ahead of me and doesn't require me to wear any extra clothing. Its called air conditioning and it works pretty well. I wonder how many millions tax payers are putting up for this, while the solders are digging through junk yards in Kuwait looking for old A/C units? I think no expense should be spared for the troops, but is there really a need for tons for R&D in how to cool a vehicle? Couldn't this be better spent on...I don't know maybe body armour etc?
Sure, the hoses are quick-release, but now he's got yet another layer of clothing on in the desert heat, a layer that probably doesn't help his maneuverability. Perhaps there's a better solution.
Ya know, I've been reading Popular Mechanics and I think in the next hundred years we'll see cooling systems mounted directly inside of the vehicles. These systems will cool the air and then blow it onto the vehicle's occupants. Now I don't suggest these are ready for common use yet, but one day it could be very useful for for are troops in such environments.
Sure, here is a clean search engine without those nasty logos. ;-)