I guess my only major point of disagreement is this:
Agreed, but in my experience, quality Windows Administrators are equally as difficult to find as quality Linux Admins.
The fact is that, even if quality windows admins are hard to find, windows admins in general are easy. You will have an easier time finding a consultant to set up your SBS server than a linux server. Although the windows guy that gets sent out by Sycom may not be a genius, Sycom is a very large company and they stand behind their work. This means that even though something may go wrong - you can rely on an entire company to fix it. If you get some indie linux (or windows) guy, you won't have that sense of security. That's the main reason for going with SBS over a linux solution - there's going to be a big ole company to support you, not just some guy working out of his van (no matter how talented he may be).
You also have to remember that in a small business environment everyone probably knows MS products. So in addition to the server, you're going to want to have windows boxes. This is easier if you server is also windows - especially from the point of view of the SB. When there's a new hire the accountant or someone else with minimal tecch knowledge can go ahead and add a new user and set up a new machine. It's really easy to do, and this way you don't need to spend money paying someone to monitor your server. You probably should - but you can get away with out it and save a lot of money (which is especially critial to small businesses!)
I'm still extremely annoyed by Linux at the moment. When I say "Linux" I mean the entire ecosystem. It's unusual to get a Windows product with no documentation, no how-to guide, nothing. With Linux, you get no official guide the majority of the time. And then you get to read every Joe-Schmo's opinion of "how to set up CUPS". On top of just different ways of accomplishing the same thing, you have to patch together tutorials where one guy assumes you know part A and the other guy assumes you know part B and just pray that the two parts you do have match up right.
My buddy has been experimenting with Linux a lot at work (setting up Aseterisk phone server, etc) He goes through times where he wants to burn the linux book and smash the box, but he also has moments where stuff actually works and that's all very exciting. I'm hoping I can get to one of those points with my own home set up, but it's really tempting to just get a copy of SBS and be done with it.
You're kind of proving my point, man. Did Linux just spring from the Virgin Mary into their computers or did you set it up for them? 'Cause guess what, linux guys aren't everywhere.
In our shop we had SBS 2003 running (since before I was there) and in the 2 years they had it running they probably had, I don't know, a couple of days of downtime total. Not great, but not really that expensive either. The worst that happened was no one cleaned up the exchange server and so it eventually choked and died for an afternoon.
But look, you've got your example, I've got mine. The point is that SB owners don't know shit about linux. As my boss put it when I mentioned going to Open Office isntead of MS Office "I think we want to be a little behind the curve on tech adoption, not leading the pack." It's not like they don't know there are better ways out there, but unless they have a tech expert to help them along it's just not worth the risk. Your linux install worked great. Fine. But there was NO ONE around here to do it. I'm trying to learn linux and I find it a royal pain in the ass. I've been a great supporter of the open source software movement (and I love open office, abiword, etc) but trying to actually set up something as basic as printer sharing has taken me HOURS of work at home on linux. It took all of 10 minutes on windows. If it weren't for my stubborn determination to learn more about linux I'd just get SBS at home and have every feature I want up and running just how I want it in a couple of hours. Instead of reading countless contradictory, non-applicable, vague and unhelpful explanations of why I can't log into cups with my username and password to tell it my printer uses letter-sized paper, not A4.
I'm sure some linux guru could fix it all - but I only know a couple and neither of them has time to spare. So given the dearth of linux gurus that small business owners can turn to they're going to continue to look to the big players for the simple fact that it's low-risk. Sure, the products aren't first rate, but the support is there, and it's not hard to find someone to make it better when it breaks.
File-server: a place to share files. About as basic as you can possibly get.
Exchange-server: a way to get email. Sadly, that's all most of these folks use it for (no shared calenders, etc. as neat as that would be)
Domain-controller: the only slightly complicated step. A way to get (some) security for your files and emails.
This is about as basic as you can possibly get for an environment that has 5-25 users. We have 25 where I work, and when we went from 20-25 (in the course of just a few weeks) we passed the point where it was worth hiring a full-time IT guy (whom I recommended, so that I could get back to, you know, my job).
Small businesses don't always have the money to hire a good IT guy, and I think we both know a bad IT guy can be a lot worse than no IT guy. So they just get some contract work to get the network up and running, they change the tape back ups every day, and if something goes wrong they call in Sycom or whatever. It's not pretty, but it works.
I guess I'm more frustrated with the type of company that goes hand-in-hand with an SBS server.
What's that supposed to mean? Why should some entrepreneur out there who wants to make money doing X have to care about the intricacies of technology if that has nothing to do with what he wants to do?
The problem, in my opinion, is that the real vision of technology has been something that just helps us. In reality, however, it's a two-way street. You need to be able to invest in technology to get the benefit. I, for one, hope that this goes away with time. I'd like to see certain basic functionalities of tech become entirely commoditized. No matter what kind of engineering feat your car is with electronic stability assist or whatever - you just turn the key and drive. The transition from one vehicle to a next is pretty minor.
I'm not saying it's anybody's fault that computers aren't like that, I just wish they were. I hate the fact that just trying to get tech to work for my own family is practically another part time job. It's a pain in the ass when my little sister calls me on my lunch break to try and figure out why her pictures aren't burning to CD when they did last time. Sure - part of me wants to say "do you even know if the pictures will all fit on a CD?" but part of me also wants to know "what happened to all the hype about tech making our lives better?"
In any case, no matter what you think about those questions, I think it's stupid to look down on people just because they picked an SBS server. That's not what they do for a living. How many people here can actually reproduce anything they use on a day-to-day basis? How many people have any idea what really goes into making something as simple as a straight-edge razor? That doesn't stop us from assuming that the stuff in our lives, from washing machines to automatic pencils, should just plain work, even if none of us have any idea how on a really detailed level.
You're definitely right about the "all eggs in one basket" risk, but what are the alternatives? A lot of the places that run SBS have no full time IT staff. With SBS they get an out-of-the box file server, domain controller, exchange server. There's a risk it may blow up and they'll lose those things, but for most of these places the alternative is not to have them in the first place.
It's too expensive to buy multiple boxes and too complicated (for these places where the controller/accountant does double-duty as IT guy). Don't even get me started on Linux. I'm sure it's great if you happen to have an open source guru around, but it's just not a viable option for setting up a back-end where no one has any serious tech experience. Then of course they could always just be a Mac shop - if they want to double or triple their IT infrastructure costs (ha!). Not to mention the prevalence of MS Access in small business areas.
I think you've got to hand it to MS. For about $400 you get all the software you need to run your business server, and it pretty much works out of the box. It's a whole lot better than not having anything, and as companies grow they will eventually build out the infrastructure and implement more redundancy. The "all eggs in one basket" isn't unique to just Windows SBS - it pretty much characterizes how small business works.
Where we have two words, their is normally such a subtle difference in their meaning.
The is a difference between what a word denotes and what it connotes. Of course there are differences between words, otherwise we wouuld only have 1, but the differences generally have to do with the connotation and not the explicit meaning. Consider "use" versus "utilize". So "equivalent" and "equal" are functionally equivalent. Observer that I could have said functionally equal and it would have meant exactly the same thing even if it sounded a little different.
No two acts are ever equivelant in the exact sense you are using.
Exactly what I'm trying to get across. Even if you aren't intendinig to do so, you're falling into a heritage of moral equivalence that says, for example, if American forces have committed rape (no matter what the circumstances) and Japanese forces have committed rape (no matter what the circumstances) then they both have equivalent degrees of guilt (as opposed to equivalent types of guilt). People who claim this are usually making some kind of "so America is in no position to criticize" or "America has no right to talk about morality" conclusion. Which doesn't follow at all even if the two do have equivalent guilt. This is what I'm explicitly rejecting.
But all acts of murder are essentially equivelant, in the meaning I am using.
I know, I've already agreed that "murder is murder" in the sense that they are qualitatively the same thing. I'm curious, though, how do you respond to my theft example. Was stealing some poor womans only car that she needs to get to work vs. some rich guys 4th Mercedes equivalent in the meaning you are using?
Thanks very much for your links regarding Pearl Harbor, by the way. I haven't read them yet, but you can rest assured I will read them. I owe you one for teaching me something I had no knowledge about!
No and I never said such a thing. You are not listening to what I am saying so you are making up straw men arguments.
OK, fine. This is exactly what you said:
Lack of impulse control is a nessasary but not sufficient criterea. I said teach your kids impulse control which will remove that one crucial criterea.
My main issue with this is the idea that all kids can be "taught" impulse control. Maybe some people don't want to control their impulses. In that event - are you going to force them to or not? The idea that everyone would be oh so nice and non-violent if only they had the skills is ridiculous. You're assuming that mass-murderers could be taught impulse control. I think this is an over simplistic view of human nature, as I've stated before.
Has violence solved your (plural) problems. Does the existence of jails, death penaly, guns, torture, spanking of children, and police brutality solved our societies problems?
So now you're going to completely ignore my responses? I listed several examples. Wake up - I don't need to defend all violence in our society. I agree that our society is already too violent. I'm not trying to say the status quo is great, or that no changes need to be made. So just because you can point to some violence that is non-productive (e.g. 'police brutality') doesn't mean anything.
f violence is all so wonderful in solving these problems then countries which have more draconian and more violent systems should have less crime, less rape, less murder but that's not true is it?
What the freak is wrong with you? "Violence is all so wonderful"? So in your little world the options are: 1. Oppose all violence 2. Revel in violence as a fundamentally great thing
Violence is not moral. Violence is a tool. It's a destructive tool. Like explosives. Most of the time it's used for bad stuff. Most explosives are used for guns, bombs, etc. But sometimes explosives are used for the controlled demolition of a building to make way for a new one. The same is true of violence. It's almost always misused, but that doens't mean that fundamentally it can never be used for good.
I have mischaracterized your arguments once or twice now. And when called on it, I have admitted it. However you continue to completely ignore several of my points in revel in the logical la-la land of the excluded middle. You have utterly failed to address the ramifications your philosophy has for freedom and human dignity, and relied on logical fallacies and absurdly unrealistic views of human nature. When are you going to start coming to terms with the issues in your own argument?
No I'm just tired of the hypocrisy of people who shill for the U.S. and Israel who say it's O.K. to bomb civilian areas as long as a "terrorist" criminal MIGHT be in the area, but they would never allow the same behavior regarding their own neighborhood. Raw rank double standards are very galling indeed.
That's all well and good. Just maybe take better aim next time and find somebody who actually thinks those things.
Let's be fair, I was pretty surprised by the +5 myself. Honestly, I was shocked. But you can't really blame me for that.
As far as the substance of what you wrote goes, I can't convince everyone that google is best for them. But personally I think sorting by name/date/etc with one button click is over-rated. I use MS Outlook extensively for work and the ability to do this sorting doesn't really help me find what I'm looking for. This is especially true when I get emails from one person via multiple accounts. If I'm looking for an email from Chris, for example, it may have come under the name "Chris" or the name "John" (one is his first name, the other his middle name). I find this type of thing extremely common. So doing he sorts be meta-data doesn't work for me very well. I'm constantly wishing Outlook had better search features, and I'm always pleased with the search features of Gmail. I especially like the labels, myself.
But yeah, if Gmail doesn't work for you I'm not going to take it personally! I guess that's why there's more than 1 email solution out there!
What's really amazing is that you come back with a paper written in 1950s by a xtian fundamentalist to counter my points. That tells me where your head is at. We have learned a lot since them about human chemistry and psycology.
Did you actually read any of the article? C. S. Lewis is by no means a "Christian fundamentalist". His points are just as applicable now as they were then, since they refer to the principles and not to specific medial facts. I encourage you to actually read it rather simply dismiss it out of hand. I think that's more revealing of your character than the fact that I happen to like a C. S. Lewis essay. I also list Simone deBeauvoir's work on ethics at the top of my 'most admired philosophical works'. So your attempt to pigeon hole me based on one essay (which I don't think you've even read) is infantile and silly.
Nonsense. There are double blind scientific studies. All mass murderers lack inpulse control. If a child lacks impulse control then it is our duty as a society to treat that. Why do you presume I don't know the difference between correlation and causation? I tell you why because you disagree with my premise. Because you disagree you automatically dismiss any and all evidence which supports it.
You are clearly not a scientist. You don't understand that I have no problem with your "double blind studies". If you really want to be fully persuasive, you should link me so that I can take a look myself. However, until I see different I'm going to point out the same glaring and obvious logical errors that you can't see.
Fact: All mass murderers lack inpulse control.
Assumption: The fact that people lack impulse control makes them mass murders.
Your assumption does NOT logically follow from the fact. First of all: do all people that lack impulse control become mass murders? If not, then clearly something else is at play. Even more importantly, however, you're absolutely committed to this idea that human nature influences human behavior. This is wrongheaded. Human behavior and human nature constitute a feedback loop. What this means is that it's entirely possible that mass murderers make decisions early in their "career" that reduce their impulse control. I flatly reject, until you can show me the double blind study that says otherwise, that just because mass murderers lack impulse control therefore impulse control causes mass murders.
Has violence solved your problems?
This is such a stupidly ignorant question it's hard to know wher to start. Has violence solved my poblems? Violence has brought me most of the good things in my life. It's brought me the political freedom that I have inherited as an American. It's brought me my religious freedom. It's brought me economic prosperity. I honor the veterans who have fallen in wars past. I can hardly count the number of ways in which I am endebted to violence - and you are too.
As far as my personal life goes, that's an irrelevent question. The chances of me being the victim of violent crime in my home are very small. So far it has never happened. So I"ve not had to use violence. I'm not a violent person, and I believe the vast majority of problems can and should be solved without violence. I mean come on - I don't even believe in spanking my kids! But just because I haven't had to use violence doens't man it doesn't work. I haen't had to use an airbag either, but that doesn't mean I thnk they are useless.
Hahahahaha. I got to say man, after my usual debates on pacifism, abortion, politics, etc. I'm really amused that the same "neener, neener, are you stupid?" tactics are used in debating email programs. I guess this is how OS flame wars start. Honestly, I just don't take this issue all that seriously, but here are some basic responses:
I've mentioned at least two in this discussion so far.
If you say so. I've forgotten already.
A fascinating change from your earlier claim that you liked 'simple uncluttered' solutions. Now you claim that being cluttered is a feature.
Uh, no. Have you used Gmail? All of these features are available from tiny shortcuts in the top left-hand corner, but there's absolutely no footprint from them in the email GUI. The interface for the email proper seems a lot cleaner and more simple than Yahoo to me.
I never claimed I wanted a standalone program - that's a strawman of your creation. You have a real problem with reading comprehension
Easy there, cowboy. Don't you think "straw man" and "reading comprehension" is kind of heavy artillery for this topic? I must have misunderstand you. My bads.
Ugh, I'm done with the rest of this. If you really like Yahoo that much, and dislike Gmail that much I just don't konw what to say.
OK, I think we're pretty much in agreement on the issue of American Imperialism. I don't think that most actions against the Native Americans counted at the early stages (18th century) since those going across the Apalachians were violating US law. So it was a question of the gov't failing to restrain it's own citizens. Unfortunately this started a cycle of violence that later on (e.g. during Andrew Jackson's presidency, most of the first half of the 18th century) that culminated in outright imperialism/genocide. Of this, no American can be proud.
Equivalent does not mean precisely equal in every way. (If it did, we wouldn't need the word, as it would be indistinguishable from its shorter relative 'equal.') It's a slightly more broad word, encompassing not just true equalities, but 'substantial similarity' as well.
I'm afraid you're just wrong on this issue. It's a false premise to say that the US only has one word per concept. Consider "wrong" and "incorrect". There's complete overlap. As far as "equivalent" goes, just type "define:equivalent" into google and see what you get:
# a person or thing equal to another in value or measure or force or effect or significance etc; "send two dollars or the equivalent in stamps" # like: equal in amount or value; "like amounts"; "equivalent amounts"; "the same amount"; "gave one six blows and the other a like number"; "an equal number"; "the same number" # being essentially equal to something; "it was as good as gold"; "a wish that was equivalent to a command"; "his statement was tantamount to an admission of guilt"
I understand what you mean when you said "rape is rape", "murder is murder", etc. Theft is theft, but does this mean that stealing some rich guys 4th mercedes is morally the samething as stealing poor little Johnny's only bike? Or stealing some poor single mothers only car that she needs for work? The same principle applies to murder. It's the same type of thing to shoot a random stranger as it is to say poison a water supply and kill 1,000 people - but one is much worse than the other.
when you indicate, for instance, that the body count at Nanking justifies the smaller one at Moro crater
I have not indicated any such thing. When, for example, I indicate that it's worse to steal some poor woman's car that she needs to get to go to work, this in now way whatsoever obviates the guy that stole some rich dude's 4th mercedes. That's still theft. I'm merely establishing that they are not the same degree of evil.
As far as the stuff with President Roosevelt goes - that's news to me - but if it's true than it's true. It's just stuff that I didn't know about.
Yahoo mimics a fully functional email client - that's why its more powerful and fully featured than GMail. There are folks who want that power - you are a decided minority.
Personally, I don't know what features Yahoo has (besides being able to view unread emails) that's not in GMail. Does it integrate with a calender? Does it integrate with chat? Does it do anything like that? No - it just immitates a stand-alone program. Well here's a thought - if you want a stand along email program why don't you actually use a stand alone email program?
It's a snap (and free) to get Thunderbird, Outlook, etc. to work with GMail. Last time I checked you had to pay to get POP3 access with Yahoo.
So if you want the actual features of a fully-integrated PIM, then I think GMail is leaps and bounds ahead of Yahoo. If you want a standalone email program, GMail allows you to do that for free. Yahoo is just a weak imitation of either, in my opinion.
It does come down to personal preference, but I think in addition to the facts I've already mentioned you have to realize that GMail's offerings are changing and growing much more rapidly than Yahoo. Yahoo, along with Hotmail, etc. are all playing catch-up with Gmail. Who offered 1 GB storage for free first? My Yahoo account, at the time, was still capped at 100MB or 500MB (I forget which) and I'd already had to start purging emails I wanted to keep. The only reason it got bigger was because of Google.
Even when Google doesn't do everything best now, they have every indication of moving in the right direction and moving faster. Several times I've wished "if only someone would code program x" and then Google comes along and does it (e.g. Google Notebook, integrated chat, Google Spreadsheet, Google Calender) Not all of the features are perfect yet, but I can't find anyone else to match these offerings.
I guess it depends on how you use it. Not being able to have multiple emails open at a time has been a hindrance to me at times, I will admit. But having to view new emails? They're at the top of my list in bold - how hard is that?
And by far the most frustrating thing I have had to deal with in emails is finding old emails - and GMails search is great for that.
I also just like the simplicity. Others have said Yahoo mimics a standalone program. I agree - and that's why I don't like it. I do most of my typing in AbiWord too. I prefer light weight, simple but efficient solutions to the glut you get with Yahoo or MS Word or even Open Office.
I appreciate the privacy concern, but I don't really share it. I'm just not that worried about GMail keeping archives of my deleted messages. The chances of that coming back to bite me in the butt are greater than 0, but not significant to me.
Every country that's engaged in imperialistic adventure has been responsible for similar acts. The history of the US in the Phillipines is, frankly, no less ignoble, even if there was no single incident in it to rival the body-count of Nanking. I repeat, every imperial player winds up doing things like this. The lesson I would draw from that is to refrain from playing that game. The lesson you appear to be drawing from it is it's ok to play the game, because the other players are evil and deserve it.
OK, you have a more nuanced view than I at first thought. My actual view is that the chief distinction between American imperialism and other imperialism is that we gave ours up without being defeated and forced to give them up. America came to colonialism late, reluctantly, and didn't last long. I don't consider WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam to have been about imperialism at all.
Of course, they're equivelant, rape is rape, murder is murder. And of course that doesn't mean they're indistinguishable either - clearly the numbers count for something, and clearly the larger body count is even worse, but both cases are fundamentally wrong, for the same reasons and in the same way.
This sentiment: "they're equivalent" directly contradicts this one: clearly the larger body count is even worse One is moral equivalence, the other is not. The two propositions are contradictory. Of course rape of 100 and rape of 100,000 are both rape. Hence, the use of the same word. But not all rapes are the same and not all murders are the same. This is a fact of stunning obviousness that is enshrined in the laws of virtually all civilized nations: if you're found guity for murder the sentence you receive will be proportional to the perceived "wrongness" of the crime. If what you say is true (e.g. "murder is murder") then the sentence for murder would be (for example) 25 years. Period. If you were a serial killer and had murdered 15 people the sentence would be 25 years for all of them. If you got in a bar fight and killed someone your sentence would be 25 years. No mitigating circumstances would be considered. Is that what you think we should be doing?
No, but they're all criminal. Do you seriously believe it's ok to murder, as long as you, say, hold back from murdering as many as Ted Bundy, for instance?
No, and nothing I've said supports that position.
The republic had no interest whatsoever in provoking a war with the axis powers
What on earth do you mean by "provoking Axis powers"? As in supporting the UK? We most certainly did have reason to support the UK. If you see a band of men break into the first house on your street, kill everyone inside, and then break into the second house, kill everyone inside, and then break into the third house, kill everyone inside, than if you live in the 5th, the 6th, or the 100th house on the street it's in your best interest to go to house #4 before they get there and help defend against them.
Yeah, I still regularly check my Yahoo accounts. And I'm aware that it's more "friendly" to your average Joe. But I actually think the Gmail approach is more efficient. I don't like folders, I vastly prefer labels. Once I got used to Gmail (and that didn't take long) I never looked back.
So you admit to breaking the agreement with Google?
Yes, I did it, alright! I admit it! I did everything.
But why!? Why would you do that to Google, Stormin?
It was for the money. Money I needed. Money I could only get with 2 Gmail accounts.
Well do you think it was worth it now, Stormin? Now that we've got you red-handed? We're taking you downtown after this. It's the big house for you, Stormin. You threw your life away!
You don't know nothin copper! Was it worth it? Damn straight it was worth it! I did what I did to survive. Out on the street it's have 2 GMail accounts or die. I ain't sorry about what I done. I lived my life like a man, a man with with TWO GMAIL ACCOUNTS. Even if it's all over now, you can't take that away from me!
Sorry? The only thing I'm sorry about is getting caught. If only I'd kept my mouth shut on the stupid Slashdot forums, I'd have made it. I nearly did make it. You just got lucky, copper, and I didn't. You and I, we ain't so different.
Watch your mouth, Stormin, you want to run into an accident on the way to the station? Is that what you want?
We're through here. Just take me in already. Let's get this over with.
The fact that a civilian body-count is not necessarily sufficient to prove who's right and who's wrong doesn't mean a civilian body count doesn't matter. I never said that. You're being dishonest or stupid, but in either case you energy is wasted attacking a straw man that isn't even a remotely reasonable facsimile for what I said.
In general terms:
What I said : X is insufficient to prove Y.
What you are saying: X doesn't matter at all.
Your vitriol is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I think you're crazy if you think Yahoo! Mail is better than Gmail. I have two accounts for each. My first web-based email account was Yahoo!, so I've been with them for a very long time.
The reasons I like GMail so much better are:
1. I got on board early (admittedly not a design feature) so I got the names I wanted 2. Better GUI - simpler, more powerful 3. Integration with awesome products that involve sharing I love being able to share Google Calenders with my wife. We each have a personal calender and we share a calender for stuff we do together - and it all shows up (color-coded) on one display. It's brilliant. We use Google Spreadsheet for simple budget tracking as well.
I think the real problem here, at least what annoys me, is you seem to have an attitude that what America does must be either out of self-interest or for moral reasons. As though they are mutually exclusive. You seem to also believe that if America is not consistent than every right act they've done is meaningless. And lastly, you engage in the some of the most egregious equivocation I've ever seen.
Of course they did. Just like the US did in the Phillipines, talking about 'Benevolent Assimilation' and praising 'heroes' for the slaughter of entire tribes.
OK, here's some of the wikipedia entry on The Rape of Nanking:
The West and other nations outside Japan have generally tended to adopt the 1938 estimates of 300,000, with many sources now quoting 300,000 dead. This is partly due to the existence of extensive photographic records of the mutilated bodies of women and children
Eyewitness accounts from the period state that over the course of six weeks following the fall of Nanjing, Japanese troops engaged in an orgy of rape, murder, theft, and arson. The most reliable accounts came from foreigners who opted to stay behind in order to protect Chinese civilians from certain harm, including the diaries of John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin.
It is a horrible story to relate; I know not where to begin nor to end. Never have I heard or read of such brutality. Rape: We estimate at least 1,000 cases a night and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disapproval there is a bayonet stab or a bullet.
There's a lot more where that came from. And that's just one example. You could also look up "Comfort Women" on wikipedia if you like.
So your retort that Of course they did. Just like the US did in the Phillipines, talking about 'Benevolent Assimilation' and praising 'heroes' for the slaughter of entire tribes. The logic here is asinine. "Our soldiers committed rape too, therefore it's all the same".
If Americans raped, say, 100 Filiplinos (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE) and the Japenese raped 100,000 (AGAIN, HYPOTHETICALLY) would you say the two are equivalent? I think not.
So the two questions to ask immediately are: 1) were American crimes against Filipinos as bad as Japanese atrocities, and 2) was the American response to those atrocities the same as the Japanese?
I think the answer to 1 is that obviously they were not. Americans didn't occupy Manilla and then spend 6 weeks raping everything that moved. They just didn't. They did engage in scorched earth policies against villages, and there were unforgivable atrocities but: a) not on the scale of the Japanese and b) American soldiers were also the victims of atrocities where, by contrast, Nanking fell essentially without resistance.
The answer to 2 is obviously different as well. There was no meaningful opposition to the Japanese atrocities or colonialism from the Japenese. By contrast, Americans at home opposed both the colonialism in general and the atrocities in specific.
So I think your equivication is unwarranted. What America did was wrong, but it doesn't mean it was morally equivalent to every other atrocity in the history of the world. Not all crimes are the same.
Who was it that said "let he who is without sin throw the first stone?"
This is stupid. I hate it when people quote the Bible without any actual understanding of what it means. Jesus is talking about retribution. Do you think WW2 was about retribution? Of course in large part the public wanted to strike back at Japan, but the moral justification for America's entry is not necessarily the same as the propaganda (as you pointed out). If an American war is ever about "getting someone back" then I'm going to be opposed to it. WW2 was about self-defense (as in, of the national interetest).
No, I"m not saying it was exclusively about self-defense. The idea that a war has to be about one thing to the exclusion of all others is y
Slashdot Mirror
I guess my only major point of disagreement is this:
Agreed, but in my experience, quality Windows Administrators are equally as difficult to find as quality Linux Admins.
The fact is that, even if quality windows admins are hard to find, windows admins in general are easy. You will have an easier time finding a consultant to set up your SBS server than a linux server. Although the windows guy that gets sent out by Sycom may not be a genius, Sycom is a very large company and they stand behind their work. This means that even though something may go wrong - you can rely on an entire company to fix it. If you get some indie linux (or windows) guy, you won't have that sense of security. That's the main reason for going with SBS over a linux solution - there's going to be a big ole company to support you, not just some guy working out of his van (no matter how talented he may be).
You also have to remember that in a small business environment everyone probably knows MS products. So in addition to the server, you're going to want to have windows boxes. This is easier if you server is also windows - especially from the point of view of the SB. When there's a new hire the accountant or someone else with minimal tecch knowledge can go ahead and add a new user and set up a new machine. It's really easy to do, and this way you don't need to spend money paying someone to monitor your server. You probably should - but you can get away with out it and save a lot of money (which is especially critial to small businesses!)
I'm still extremely annoyed by Linux at the moment. When I say "Linux" I mean the entire ecosystem. It's unusual to get a Windows product with no documentation, no how-to guide, nothing. With Linux, you get no official guide the majority of the time. And then you get to read every Joe-Schmo's opinion of "how to set up CUPS". On top of just different ways of accomplishing the same thing, you have to patch together tutorials where one guy assumes you know part A and the other guy assumes you know part B and just pray that the two parts you do have match up right.
My buddy has been experimenting with Linux a lot at work (setting up Aseterisk phone server, etc) He goes through times where he wants to burn the linux book and smash the box, but he also has moments where stuff actually works and that's all very exciting. I'm hoping I can get to one of those points with my own home set up, but it's really tempting to just get a copy of SBS and be done with it.
-stormin
You're kind of proving my point, man. Did Linux just spring from the Virgin Mary into their computers or did you set it up for them? 'Cause guess what, linux guys aren't everywhere.
In our shop we had SBS 2003 running (since before I was there) and in the 2 years they had it running they probably had, I don't know, a couple of days of downtime total. Not great, but not really that expensive either. The worst that happened was no one cleaned up the exchange server and so it eventually choked and died for an afternoon.
But look, you've got your example, I've got mine. The point is that SB owners don't know shit about linux. As my boss put it when I mentioned going to Open Office isntead of MS Office "I think we want to be a little behind the curve on tech adoption, not leading the pack." It's not like they don't know there are better ways out there, but unless they have a tech expert to help them along it's just not worth the risk. Your linux install worked great. Fine. But there was NO ONE around here to do it. I'm trying to learn linux and I find it a royal pain in the ass. I've been a great supporter of the open source software movement (and I love open office, abiword, etc) but trying to actually set up something as basic as printer sharing has taken me HOURS of work at home on linux. It took all of 10 minutes on windows. If it weren't for my stubborn determination to learn more about linux I'd just get SBS at home and have every feature I want up and running just how I want it in a couple of hours. Instead of reading countless contradictory, non-applicable, vague and unhelpful explanations of why I can't log into cups with my username and password to tell it my printer uses letter-sized paper, not A4.
I'm sure some linux guru could fix it all - but I only know a couple and neither of them has time to spare. So given the dearth of linux gurus that small business owners can turn to they're going to continue to look to the big players for the simple fact that it's low-risk. Sure, the products aren't first rate, but the support is there, and it's not hard to find someone to make it better when it breaks.
-stormin
What are you talking about?
File-server: a place to share files. About as basic as you can possibly get.
Exchange-server: a way to get email. Sadly, that's all most of these folks use it for (no shared calenders, etc. as neat as that would be)
Domain-controller: the only slightly complicated step. A way to get (some) security for your files and emails.
This is about as basic as you can possibly get for an environment that has 5-25 users. We have 25 where I work, and when we went from 20-25 (in the course of just a few weeks) we passed the point where it was worth hiring a full-time IT guy (whom I recommended, so that I could get back to, you know, my job).
Small businesses don't always have the money to hire a good IT guy, and I think we both know a bad IT guy can be a lot worse than no IT guy. So they just get some contract work to get the network up and running, they change the tape back ups every day, and if something goes wrong they call in Sycom or whatever. It's not pretty, but it works.
-stormin
If I could afford a Mac, believe me, I would.
I can't.
-stormin
You can lead a horse to water...
I guess I'm more frustrated with the type of company that goes hand-in-hand with an SBS server.
What's that supposed to mean? Why should some entrepreneur out there who wants to make money doing X have to care about the intricacies of technology if that has nothing to do with what he wants to do?
The problem, in my opinion, is that the real vision of technology has been something that just helps us. In reality, however, it's a two-way street. You need to be able to invest in technology to get the benefit. I, for one, hope that this goes away with time. I'd like to see certain basic functionalities of tech become entirely commoditized. No matter what kind of engineering feat your car is with electronic stability assist or whatever - you just turn the key and drive. The transition from one vehicle to a next is pretty minor.
I'm not saying it's anybody's fault that computers aren't like that, I just wish they were. I hate the fact that just trying to get tech to work for my own family is practically another part time job. It's a pain in the ass when my little sister calls me on my lunch break to try and figure out why her pictures aren't burning to CD when they did last time. Sure - part of me wants to say "do you even know if the pictures will all fit on a CD?" but part of me also wants to know "what happened to all the hype about tech making our lives better?"
In any case, no matter what you think about those questions, I think it's stupid to look down on people just because they picked an SBS server. That's not what they do for a living. How many people here can actually reproduce anything they use on a day-to-day basis? How many people have any idea what really goes into making something as simple as a straight-edge razor? That doesn't stop us from assuming that the stuff in our lives, from washing machines to automatic pencils, should just plain work, even if none of us have any idea how on a really detailed level.
-stormin
You're definitely right about the "all eggs in one basket" risk, but what are the alternatives? A lot of the places that run SBS have no full time IT staff. With SBS they get an out-of-the box file server, domain controller, exchange server. There's a risk it may blow up and they'll lose those things, but for most of these places the alternative is not to have them in the first place.
It's too expensive to buy multiple boxes and too complicated (for these places where the controller/accountant does double-duty as IT guy). Don't even get me started on Linux. I'm sure it's great if you happen to have an open source guru around, but it's just not a viable option for setting up a back-end where no one has any serious tech experience. Then of course they could always just be a Mac shop - if they want to double or triple their IT infrastructure costs (ha!). Not to mention the prevalence of MS Access in small business areas.
I think you've got to hand it to MS. For about $400 you get all the software you need to run your business server, and it pretty much works out of the box. It's a whole lot better than not having anything, and as companies grow they will eventually build out the infrastructure and implement more redundancy. The "all eggs in one basket" isn't unique to just Windows SBS - it pretty much characterizes how small business works.
-stormin
Sure, playing MMOGs can help you meet all kinds of strange people, as long as they are male.
-stormin
Where we have two words, their is normally such a subtle difference in their meaning.
The is a difference between what a word denotes and what it connotes. Of course there are differences between words, otherwise we wouuld only have 1, but the differences generally have to do with the connotation and not the explicit meaning. Consider "use" versus "utilize". So "equivalent" and "equal" are functionally equivalent. Observer that I could have said functionally equal and it would have meant exactly the same thing even if it sounded a little different.
No two acts are ever equivelant in the exact sense you are using.
Exactly what I'm trying to get across. Even if you aren't intendinig to do so, you're falling into a heritage of moral equivalence that says, for example, if American forces have committed rape (no matter what the circumstances) and Japanese forces have committed rape (no matter what the circumstances) then they both have equivalent degrees of guilt (as opposed to equivalent types of guilt). People who claim this are usually making some kind of "so America is in no position to criticize" or "America has no right to talk about morality" conclusion. Which doesn't follow at all even if the two do have equivalent guilt. This is what I'm explicitly rejecting.
But all acts of murder are essentially equivelant, in the meaning I am using.
I know, I've already agreed that "murder is murder" in the sense that they are qualitatively the same thing. I'm curious, though, how do you respond to my theft example. Was stealing some poor womans only car that she needs to get to work vs. some rich guys 4th Mercedes equivalent in the meaning you are using?
Thanks very much for your links regarding Pearl Harbor, by the way. I haven't read them yet, but you can rest assured I will read them. I owe you one for teaching me something I had no knowledge about!
-stormin
No and I never said such a thing. You are not listening to what I am saying so you are making up straw men arguments.
OK, fine. This is exactly what you said:
Lack of impulse control is a nessasary but not sufficient criterea. I said teach your kids impulse control which will remove that one crucial criterea.
My main issue with this is the idea that all kids can be "taught" impulse control. Maybe some people don't want to control their impulses. In that event - are you going to force them to or not? The idea that everyone would be oh so nice and non-violent if only they had the skills is ridiculous. You're assuming that mass-murderers could be taught impulse control. I think this is an over simplistic view of human nature, as I've stated before.
Has violence solved your (plural) problems. Does the existence of jails, death penaly, guns, torture, spanking of children, and police brutality solved our societies problems?
So now you're going to completely ignore my responses? I listed several examples. Wake up - I don't need to defend all violence in our society. I agree that our society is already too violent. I'm not trying to say the status quo is great, or that no changes need to be made. So just because you can point to some violence that is non-productive (e.g. 'police brutality') doesn't mean anything.
f violence is all so wonderful in solving these problems then countries which have more draconian and more violent systems should have less crime, less rape, less murder but that's not true is it?
What the freak is wrong with you? "Violence is all so wonderful"? So in your little world the options are:
1. Oppose all violence
2. Revel in violence as a fundamentally great thing
Violence is not moral. Violence is a tool. It's a destructive tool. Like explosives. Most of the time it's used for bad stuff. Most explosives are used for guns, bombs, etc. But sometimes explosives are used for the controlled demolition of a building to make way for a new one. The same is true of violence. It's almost always misused, but that doens't mean that fundamentally it can never be used for good.
I have mischaracterized your arguments once or twice now. And when called on it, I have admitted it. However you continue to completely ignore several of my points in revel in the logical la-la land of the excluded middle. You have utterly failed to address the ramifications your philosophy has for freedom and human dignity, and relied on logical fallacies and absurdly unrealistic views of human nature. When are you going to start coming to terms with the issues in your own argument?
-stormin
No I'm just tired of the hypocrisy of people who shill for the U.S. and Israel who say it's O.K. to bomb civilian areas as long as a "terrorist" criminal MIGHT be in the area, but they would never allow the same behavior regarding their own neighborhood. Raw rank double standards are very galling indeed.
That's all well and good. Just maybe take better aim next time and find somebody who actually thinks those things.
-stormin
Let's be fair, I was pretty surprised by the +5 myself. Honestly, I was shocked. But you can't really blame me for that.
As far as the substance of what you wrote goes, I can't convince everyone that google is best for them. But personally I think sorting by name/date/etc with one button click is over-rated. I use MS Outlook extensively for work and the ability to do this sorting doesn't really help me find what I'm looking for. This is especially true when I get emails from one person via multiple accounts. If I'm looking for an email from Chris, for example, it may have come under the name "Chris" or the name "John" (one is his first name, the other his middle name). I find this type of thing extremely common. So doing he sorts be meta-data doesn't work for me very well. I'm constantly wishing Outlook had better search features, and I'm always pleased with the search features of Gmail. I especially like the labels, myself.
But yeah, if Gmail doesn't work for you I'm not going to take it personally! I guess that's why there's more than 1 email solution out there!
-stormin
What's really amazing is that you come back with a paper written in 1950s by a xtian fundamentalist to counter my points. That tells me where your head is at. We have learned a lot since them about human chemistry and psycology.
Did you actually read any of the article? C. S. Lewis is by no means a "Christian fundamentalist". His points are just as applicable now as they were then, since they refer to the principles and not to specific medial facts. I encourage you to actually read it rather simply dismiss it out of hand. I think that's more revealing of your character than the fact that I happen to like a C. S. Lewis essay. I also list Simone deBeauvoir's work on ethics at the top of my 'most admired philosophical works'. So your attempt to pigeon hole me based on one essay (which I don't think you've even read) is infantile and silly.
Nonsense. There are double blind scientific studies. All mass murderers lack inpulse control. If a child lacks impulse control then it is our duty as a society to treat that. Why do you presume I don't know the difference between correlation and causation? I tell you why because you disagree with my premise. Because you disagree you automatically dismiss any and all evidence which supports it.
You are clearly not a scientist. You don't understand that I have no problem with your "double blind studies". If you really want to be fully persuasive, you should link me so that I can take a look myself. However, until I see different I'm going to point out the same glaring and obvious logical errors that you can't see.
Fact: All mass murderers lack inpulse control.
Assumption: The fact that people lack impulse control makes them mass murders.
Your assumption does NOT logically follow from the fact. First of all: do all people that lack impulse control become mass murders? If not, then clearly something else is at play. Even more importantly, however, you're absolutely committed to this idea that human nature influences human behavior. This is wrongheaded. Human behavior and human nature constitute a feedback loop. What this means is that it's entirely possible that mass murderers make decisions early in their "career" that reduce their impulse control. I flatly reject, until you can show me the double blind study that says otherwise, that just because mass murderers lack impulse control therefore impulse control causes mass murders.
Has violence solved your problems?
This is such a stupidly ignorant question it's hard to know wher to start. Has violence solved my poblems? Violence has brought me most of the good things in my life. It's brought me the political freedom that I have inherited as an American. It's brought me my religious freedom. It's brought me economic prosperity. I honor the veterans who have fallen in wars past. I can hardly count the number of ways in which I am endebted to violence - and you are too.
As far as my personal life goes, that's an irrelevent question. The chances of me being the victim of violent crime in my home are very small. So far it has never happened. So I"ve not had to use violence. I'm not a violent person, and I believe the vast majority of problems can and should be solved without violence. I mean come on - I don't even believe in spanking my kids! But just because I haven't had to use violence doens't man it doesn't work. I haen't had to use an airbag either, but that doesn't mean I thnk they are useless.
-stormin
Hahahahaha. I got to say man, after my usual debates on pacifism, abortion, politics, etc. I'm really amused that the same "neener, neener, are you stupid?" tactics are used in debating email programs. I guess this is how OS flame wars start. Honestly, I just don't take this issue all that seriously, but here are some basic responses:
I've mentioned at least two in this discussion so far.
If you say so. I've forgotten already.
A fascinating change from your earlier claim that you liked 'simple uncluttered' solutions. Now you claim that being cluttered is a feature.
Uh, no. Have you used Gmail? All of these features are available from tiny shortcuts in the top left-hand corner, but there's absolutely no footprint from them in the email GUI. The interface for the email proper seems a lot cleaner and more simple than Yahoo to me.
I never claimed I wanted a standalone program - that's a strawman of your creation. You have a real problem with reading comprehension
Easy there, cowboy. Don't you think "straw man" and "reading comprehension" is kind of heavy artillery for this topic? I must have misunderstand you. My bads.
Ugh, I'm done with the rest of this. If you really like Yahoo that much, and dislike Gmail that much I just don't konw what to say.
Carry on.
-stormin
OK, I think we're pretty much in agreement on the issue of American Imperialism. I don't think that most actions against the Native Americans counted at the early stages (18th century) since those going across the Apalachians were violating US law. So it was a question of the gov't failing to restrain it's own citizens. Unfortunately this started a cycle of violence that later on (e.g. during Andrew Jackson's presidency, most of the first half of the 18th century) that culminated in outright imperialism/genocide. Of this, no American can be proud.
Equivalent does not mean precisely equal in every way. (If it did, we wouldn't need the word, as it would be indistinguishable from its shorter relative 'equal.') It's a slightly more broad word, encompassing not just true equalities, but 'substantial similarity' as well.
I'm afraid you're just wrong on this issue. It's a false premise to say that the US only has one word per concept. Consider "wrong" and "incorrect". There's complete overlap. As far as "equivalent" goes, just type "define:equivalent" into google and see what you get:
# a person or thing equal to another in value or measure or force or effect or significance etc; "send two dollars or the equivalent in stamps"
# like: equal in amount or value; "like amounts"; "equivalent amounts"; "the same amount"; "gave one six blows and the other a like number"; "an equal number"; "the same number"
# being essentially equal to something; "it was as good as gold"; "a wish that was equivalent to a command"; "his statement was tantamount to an admission of guilt"
I understand what you mean when you said "rape is rape", "murder is murder", etc. Theft is theft, but does this mean that stealing some rich guys 4th mercedes is morally the samething as stealing poor little Johnny's only bike? Or stealing some poor single mothers only car that she needs for work? The same principle applies to murder. It's the same type of thing to shoot a random stranger as it is to say poison a water supply and kill 1,000 people - but one is much worse than the other.
when you indicate, for instance, that the body count at Nanking justifies the smaller one at Moro crater
I have not indicated any such thing. When, for example, I indicate that it's worse to steal some poor woman's car that she needs to get to go to work, this in now way whatsoever obviates the guy that stole some rich dude's 4th mercedes. That's still theft. I'm merely establishing that they are not the same degree of evil.
As far as the stuff with President Roosevelt goes - that's news to me - but if it's true than it's true. It's just stuff that I didn't know about.
-stormin
It seems we've stumbled across the mystical "+5: Google" rating, second only to "+5:Linux"
-stormin
Yahoo mimics a fully functional email client - that's why its more powerful and fully featured than GMail. There are folks who want that power - you are a decided minority.
Personally, I don't know what features Yahoo has (besides being able to view unread emails) that's not in GMail. Does it integrate with a calender? Does it integrate with chat? Does it do anything like that? No - it just immitates a stand-alone program. Well here's a thought - if you want a stand along email program why don't you actually use a stand alone email program?
It's a snap (and free) to get Thunderbird, Outlook, etc. to work with GMail. Last time I checked you had to pay to get POP3 access with Yahoo.
So if you want the actual features of a fully-integrated PIM, then I think GMail is leaps and bounds ahead of Yahoo. If you want a standalone email program, GMail allows you to do that for free. Yahoo is just a weak imitation of either, in my opinion.
It does come down to personal preference, but I think in addition to the facts I've already mentioned you have to realize that GMail's offerings are changing and growing much more rapidly than Yahoo. Yahoo, along with Hotmail, etc. are all playing catch-up with Gmail. Who offered 1 GB storage for free first? My Yahoo account, at the time, was still capped at 100MB or 500MB (I forget which) and I'd already had to start purging emails I wanted to keep. The only reason it got bigger was because of Google.
Even when Google doesn't do everything best now, they have every indication of moving in the right direction and moving faster. Several times I've wished "if only someone would code program x" and then Google comes along and does it (e.g. Google Notebook, integrated chat, Google Spreadsheet, Google Calender) Not all of the features are perfect yet, but I can't find anyone else to match these offerings.
-stormin
I guess it depends on how you use it. Not being able to have multiple emails open at a time has been a hindrance to me at times, I will admit. But having to view new emails? They're at the top of my list in bold - how hard is that?
And by far the most frustrating thing I have had to deal with in emails is finding old emails - and GMails search is great for that.
I also just like the simplicity. Others have said Yahoo mimics a standalone program. I agree - and that's why I don't like it. I do most of my typing in AbiWord too. I prefer light weight, simple but efficient solutions to the glut you get with Yahoo or MS Word or even Open Office.
-stormin
I appreciate the privacy concern, but I don't really share it. I'm just not that worried about GMail keeping archives of my deleted messages. The chances of that coming back to bite me in the butt are greater than 0, but not significant to me.
Still... to each his own.
-stormin
Every country that's engaged in imperialistic adventure has been responsible for similar acts. The history of the US in the Phillipines is, frankly, no less ignoble, even if there was no single incident in it to rival the body-count of Nanking. I repeat, every imperial player winds up doing things like this. The lesson I would draw from that is to refrain from playing that game. The lesson you appear to be drawing from it is it's ok to play the game, because the other players are evil and deserve it.
OK, you have a more nuanced view than I at first thought. My actual view is that the chief distinction between American imperialism and other imperialism is that we gave ours up without being defeated and forced to give them up. America came to colonialism late, reluctantly, and didn't last long. I don't consider WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam to have been about imperialism at all.
Of course, they're equivelant, rape is rape, murder is murder. And of course that doesn't mean they're indistinguishable either - clearly the numbers count for something, and clearly the larger body count is even worse, but both cases are fundamentally wrong, for the same reasons and in the same way.
This sentiment: "they're equivalent" directly contradicts this one: clearly the larger body count is even worse One is moral equivalence, the other is not. The two propositions are contradictory. Of course rape of 100 and rape of 100,000 are both rape. Hence, the use of the same word. But not all rapes are the same and not all murders are the same. This is a fact of stunning obviousness that is enshrined in the laws of virtually all civilized nations: if you're found guity for murder the sentence you receive will be proportional to the perceived "wrongness" of the crime. If what you say is true (e.g. "murder is murder") then the sentence for murder would be (for example) 25 years. Period. If you were a serial killer and had murdered 15 people the sentence would be 25 years for all of them. If you got in a bar fight and killed someone your sentence would be 25 years. No mitigating circumstances would be considered. Is that what you think we should be doing?
No, but they're all criminal. Do you seriously believe it's ok to murder, as long as you, say, hold back from murdering as many as Ted Bundy, for instance?
No, and nothing I've said supports that position.
The republic had no interest whatsoever in provoking a war with the axis powers
What on earth do you mean by "provoking Axis powers"? As in supporting the UK? We most certainly did have reason to support the UK. If you see a band of men break into the first house on your street, kill everyone inside, and then break into the second house, kill everyone inside, and then break into the third house, kill everyone inside, than if you live in the 5th, the 6th, or the 100th house on the street it's in your best interest to go to house #4 before they get there and help defend against them.
-stormin
Yeah, I still regularly check my Yahoo accounts. And I'm aware that it's more "friendly" to your average Joe. But I actually think the Gmail approach is more efficient. I don't like folders, I vastly prefer labels. Once I got used to Gmail (and that didn't take long) I never looked back.
-stormin
So you admit to breaking the agreement with Google?
Yes, I did it, alright! I admit it! I did everything.
But why!? Why would you do that to Google, Stormin?
It was for the money. Money I needed. Money I could only get with 2 Gmail accounts.
Well do you think it was worth it now, Stormin? Now that we've got you red-handed? We're taking you downtown after this. It's the big house for you, Stormin. You threw your life away!
You don't know nothin copper! Was it worth it? Damn straight it was worth it! I did what I did to survive. Out on the street it's have 2 GMail accounts or die. I ain't sorry about what I done. I lived my life like a man, a man with with TWO GMAIL ACCOUNTS. Even if it's all over now, you can't take that away from me!
Sorry? The only thing I'm sorry about is getting caught. If only I'd kept my mouth shut on the stupid Slashdot forums, I'd have made it. I nearly did make it. You just got lucky, copper, and I didn't. You and I, we ain't so different.
Watch your mouth, Stormin, you want to run into an accident on the way to the station? Is that what you want?
We're through here. Just take me in already. Let's get this over with.
-stormin
The fact that a civilian body-count is not necessarily sufficient to prove who's right and who's wrong doesn't mean a civilian body count doesn't matter. I never said that. You're being dishonest or stupid, but in either case you energy is wasted attacking a straw man that isn't even a remotely reasonable facsimile for what I said.
In general terms:
What I said : X is insufficient to prove Y.
What you are saying: X doesn't matter at all.
Your vitriol is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
-stormin
I think you're crazy if you think Yahoo! Mail is better than Gmail. I have two accounts for each. My first web-based email account was Yahoo!, so I've been with them for a very long time.
The reasons I like GMail so much better are:
1. I got on board early (admittedly not a design feature) so I got the names I wanted
2. Better GUI - simpler, more powerful
3. Integration with awesome products that involve sharing I love being able to share Google Calenders with my wife. We each have a personal calender and we share a calender for stuff we do together - and it all shows up (color-coded) on one display. It's brilliant. We use Google Spreadsheet for simple budget tracking as well.
Yahoo is #1 because of the head-start, that's it.
-stormin
I think the real problem here, at least what annoys me, is you seem to have an attitude that what America does must be either out of self-interest or for moral reasons. As though they are mutually exclusive. You seem to also believe that if America is not consistent than every right act they've done is meaningless. And lastly, you engage in the some of the most egregious equivocation I've ever seen.
Of course they did. Just like the US did in the Phillipines, talking about 'Benevolent Assimilation' and praising 'heroes' for the slaughter of entire tribes.
OK, here's some of the wikipedia entry on The Rape of Nanking:
The West and other nations outside Japan have generally tended to adopt the 1938 estimates of 300,000, with many sources now quoting 300,000 dead. This is partly due to the existence of extensive photographic records of the mutilated bodies of women and children
Eyewitness accounts from the period state that over the course of six weeks following the fall of Nanjing, Japanese troops engaged in an orgy of rape, murder, theft, and arson. The most reliable accounts came from foreigners who opted to stay behind in order to protect Chinese civilians from certain harm, including the diaries of John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin.
It is a horrible story to relate; I know not where to begin nor to end. Never have I heard or read of such brutality. Rape: We estimate at least 1,000 cases a night and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disapproval there is a bayonet stab or a bullet.
There's a lot more where that came from. And that's just one example. You could also look up "Comfort Women" on wikipedia if you like.
So your retort that Of course they did. Just like the US did in the Phillipines, talking about 'Benevolent Assimilation' and praising 'heroes' for the slaughter of entire tribes. The logic here is asinine. "Our soldiers committed rape too, therefore it's all the same".
If Americans raped, say, 100 Filiplinos (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE) and the Japenese raped 100,000 (AGAIN, HYPOTHETICALLY) would you say the two are equivalent? I think not.
So the two questions to ask immediately are: 1) were American crimes against Filipinos as bad as Japanese atrocities, and 2) was the American response to those atrocities the same as the Japanese?
I think the answer to 1 is that obviously they were not. Americans didn't occupy Manilla and then spend 6 weeks raping everything that moved. They just didn't. They did engage in scorched earth policies against villages, and there were unforgivable atrocities but: a) not on the scale of the Japanese and b) American soldiers were also the victims of atrocities where, by contrast, Nanking fell essentially without resistance.
The answer to 2 is obviously different as well. There was no meaningful opposition to the Japanese atrocities or colonialism from the Japenese. By contrast, Americans at home opposed both the colonialism in general and the atrocities in specific.
So I think your equivication is unwarranted. What America did was wrong, but it doesn't mean it was morally equivalent to every other atrocity in the history of the world. Not all crimes are the same.
Who was it that said "let he who is without sin throw the first stone?"
This is stupid. I hate it when people quote the Bible without any actual understanding of what it means. Jesus is talking about retribution. Do you think WW2 was about retribution? Of course in large part the public wanted to strike back at Japan, but the moral justification for America's entry is not necessarily the same as the propaganda (as you pointed out). If an American war is ever about "getting someone back" then I'm going to be opposed to it. WW2 was about self-defense (as in, of the national interetest).
No, I"m not saying it was exclusively about self-defense. The idea that a war has to be about one thing to the exclusion of all others is y