That's rather cynical and is oposite of what my experience was. I'm not saying the possibilities were infinite or even large, but my manager encouraged me to express my goals within the organization and to find a way to make it happen with no constraints on my salary. My problem was that I didn't have enough passion to make anything of myself. I ended up going to grad school in Physics (I had a B.S. in Comp Sci) and am currently working on particle track reconstruction and accelerator simulations. That's not to say the OP can't find his passion in a supporting role. There was a lot of cool stuff going on. I was just interested more in the science than in the comp sci part. So my advice is to checkout the national laboratories for job postings.
Your first citation only says that temperatures are lower in the area that was tested. This says nothing about the average temperature of the globe as a whole. I thought this went through the media and was straightened out 6 months ago.
Your second citation, if I'm reading the graph correctly, only lists CO2 levels up until 10,000 years ago! As far as I know there were no industrialized nations 10,000 years ago that were putting unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the air artificially. It is well known that rising temperatures can cause out gassing. That's all this study shows, really. If anything it warns us that if we artificially increase the temperature then there will be a positive feedback loop that will make things worse.
Your third point, though appreciated for it's words of caution, is basically suggesting that computer models are useless because they are tricky. That's ridiculous. It's like saying predictions made by scientific theories are useless because we're not sure that the predictions will be true. The models are made to fit past data and have been tested since they were written and found to be reasonable at least for the short term. You can scoff at that, but there's really nothing else you can ask of these models.
Finally, give me one example of a credible scientist (i.e. not being payed by fossil fuel companies) who has published a peer reviewed article that directly contradicts the general consensus and who has had their career destroyed.
Ah, so they don't understand that you can still use Carbon 14 proportions that are smaller than 1/2 what would be there in a living organism.
That's even better than thinking they pulled the number out of thin air. It's yet more evidence that they don't know what the fuh they're talking about.
Thank you for bringing this up! The -ism was an invention of the IDers in an attempt to make support of evolution into an ideology so that they could fight it on religious fairness grounds.
Many of the comments on the NY Times site are worth reading in this regard. The essay is over reacting and is just feeding into the creationist propaganda that scientists are ideologically equivalent to creationists. Biologists don't use the term, but now everybody thinks they do. Good job!
Control was supposed to be retained by the ruling elite, not the people. Working people have had to struggle from the very beginning against gross inequality between themselves and the rich and powerful. Also, originally one couldn't vote unless one was male and owned property, and much of that property was grabbed by those who were already rich and powerful enough back in England to get away with it.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights may say it reserves any undelegated power to the states or the people, but can anyone name a single instance where the people actually have a direct say in what happens? The Bill of Rights was more of just a device to placate the masses in order to avoid revolt.
People act like the government has gone horribly astray, but I believe it's just gotten fatter. Our experiment in faux democracy worked quite well for a while; but now that the people have been lulled into a permanent state of complacency, the government has hardly anything to do but become more and more corrupt.
As the article mentions, this policy was easily abused in the past. I frankly don't see any reason to use it except to monitor dissidents. If you have good reason to suspect an individual, I don't see why it's so hard to just get a fucking warrant. It just gives me more of this feeling that the government doesn't even care if we know they're totally fucking corrupt anymore. What the hell are the people going to do about it? Stage a protest in a big city? Oooh, I'm sooo scared!
I've lived here for over 15 years. My family has been here for ~50 years. I'm writing what I have seen and continue to see both from my perspective as an employer, as the son and grandson of "white traders" as well as someone who ran the Rez for a couple of years myself. The successes are people who have had to fight "their own" tooth and nail just for a chance.
I'm certainly not trying to get into a pissing match with you, but my understanding was that, for starters, you had to be Navajo to hold office on the rez. Am I mistaken or am I misinterpreting what you mean by "ran the Rez"?
Some if not all of these will have people that can do the work.
Point taken. Also, Fort Defiance hospital had a functioning WiFi network as well as IP phone capabilities extended to the housing compound, so I'm assuming there are Navajo around that can handle WiFi repeaters.
NACA is managing to get things done by avoiding the tribal government, but I don't think this can be accomplished without buy-in from Window Rock.
I'd agree with that. Having one site wired (or not wired as the case may be) for internet is one thing. Getting permission for placing WAN infrastructure no matter how minimally intrusive can't circumvent the government. At some point you'd have to access a telephone pole or something.
By that logic, they should have a lower expectation that someone else is going to take care of them, not more.
Certainly there are people who take this train of thought, but I know for certain there are others who feel like they should milk the feds for anything they can get on account of the fact that the feds continuously screw them over.
I meant and still do mean that if they want anything to be different they have to take steps to make the change. Word it however you want, "The lord helps those who help themselves," if that makes it any better.
I understand, but it's a bit unfair to expect them to want change if that means becoming more like the white man. In other words, they may be disinclined to change in the direction of bettering themselves if it means assimilating to white culture.
I was going to address xenophobia, but I don't think it adds to the conversation.
Most people would just give up. You can't complain that there are no opportunities, yet stifle any attempt to better yourself.
So then I presume she didn't give up? I don't mean to drag this out, but isn't it kind of bad to use a contrary example in an attempt to prove your point? And actually this doesn't even do that. There's nothing here about this lady encountering jealousy from fellow Navajo.
When I brought up the crab bucket mentality, I was basing that on a conversation that I had with a woman who had moved off the reservation with her husband. [...] When family members heard about the health insurance they were admonished to drop the coverage because, "you're not better than us".
Unfortunately this example has nothing to do with entrepreneurial hurdles. I'm not saying the Navajo are saints. I'm sure there is plenty of jealousy for those Navajo that leave and become successful. But I lived on the reservation for over three years and saw much stronger factors than jealousy with respect to why the economy is practically non-existent.
They will take an entire day off of work to drive 50 miles each way to the IHS clinic where they won't have to pay instead of go to a doctor in town and pay their $25.00 deductible (and not have to miss any work)
I agree that that's a bit extreme from a financial point of view. I would recommend holding judgment without knowing their reasons, though. For example, this could be simply because they are more comfortable with the staff at that particular hospital. The Navajo tend to be reserved when first meeting people (especially outsiders), but once they know you they often treat you like family. Or it could be they'd prefer not to go to a "white man" hospital. I'm not condoning xenophobia like that, but after the way they've been treated I'm not surprised. Many of them still visit the medicine man.
Back on the original topic: an OSS type solution might work. [...] It would require serious buy-in from the powers that be and it would need to require the tribal government to do something.
Aside from the lack of technical workers to maintain the system and limited funding, I agree the next biggest hurdle is the tribal government. And that's pretty much the story for any infrastructure issue on the rez.
This is another problem for them. There is a sense of entitlement that's pervasive.
At risk of sounding like an apologist, I again have to suggest an open mind here. Considering that the federal government has rarely (if ever) come through on it's treaty obligations with the tribe, I'm not surprised nor would I look down on any Navajo for having such an attitude.
That said, they are trying to become more independent. There's at least one hospital that is either planning to or already has weened itself from federal funding because the Navajo in general do desire to be independent. Of course there is wide skepticism as to whether they could possibly afford it given the economic situation on the rez, but they are trying.
They've had a year to think about a different solution, which could include the tribe actually paying for their own satellite connection, instead of the FCC grant.
I can't argue with this. I think anybody with any knowledge of the rez knows the government is a bureaucratic nightmare. But again, I don't think it's fair to just chalk it up to personal failings of the residents. Like any poverty stricken population, poor management of infrastructure is a common symptom.
Perhaps. The real answer may be along the lines of the old joke, How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but the bulb has to want to change.
You mean, "Just one, but the bulb has to want to assimilate into a culture that was forced upon it".
You have a point, but something about this line of thinking stinks. I supposed it's that it seems more like an excuse to avoid feeling compelled to help people who have gotten the short end of the stick. It just perpetuates the "sucks to be you" culture that's especially prevalent in the US. We should just be as greedy as possible, ignoring the plight of anyone else. Some people call it the "culture of independence", but I just think it's a lack of compassion.
Furthermore, when are we going to consider conquering people as an unacceptable practice? If we don't take responsibility for recent actions of this sort, there's no precedent for the future on how governments should act. If you think our government is above this now, consider the fact that we're occupying two countries as we speak...er...type. Different circumstances, sure, but the same solution.
I wouldn't say that the "crab bucket mentality" is what's primarily keeping enterprising individuals from staying on the reservation. The quality of primary education is quite bad, and most young people go into the military because they can't afford or don't know about higher education opportunities, leave the rez for work, or end up jobless if they decide to stay with their people and their culture. So even if you could create a working business model that accounted for the high overhead of having a business on the reservation, there aren't any knowledge workers to operate your business. Furthermore, you can't recruit non-Navajo workers from off the reservation because of "Navajo preference" in hiring, and the fact that you can't realistically live outside of government housing compounds restricted to employees of the schools and hospitals.
I don't mean to act as if your entire post was wrong, because it isn't. The tribal government is definitely messed up in more ways than just business policy. But I'd be careful in blaming the people themselves for the dearth of opportunity on the reservation. The Navajo I know encourage "learning from the white man, but coming back to help [their] people". Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to make a living even if you're educated. How can jealousy of other's entrepreneurial success be a significant factor when there's very little entrepreneurial success to speak of?
Note that the Lorentz force allow to cross gravitational potential surfaces, at the cost of making the orbit non-circular.
Yeah you're right, if the entire hull is charged either positively or negatively, the deflection would be (roughly) away or toward the planet. And, as you alluded to, you'd still need propellant to alter the satellite's speed if you want the orbit to remain circular and not decay.
For some reason I was thinking they were only charging portions of the hull to cause the satellite to rotate like gyroscopes are used to do. In other words, a dipole configuration traveling through a B field (axis parallel to the tangential velocity vector) should get deflection one way at one pole and another way at another pole, twisting the satellite.
While what you said is true about the magnetic force (the Lorentz force is actually the sum of the electric and magnetic forces), it doesn't mean satellites need propellant only for boosting their orbit radius. Merely rotating a satellite back into alignment wouldn't involve crossing gravitational potential lines, but would require propellant to create a torque unless one uses gyroscopes or the planet's magnetic field.
And I find your attempt to link the modern day policies of GWB to a discussion about WW2 to be pretty amusing.
Because we all know that history has no bearing on the present (that's sarcasm in case you missed it). My point, since it is once again been missed, is that our government is capable of such things. This was by no means a cheap attack on Bush. I just figured a modern day example might ring more true with you.
If you bothered to do any study of the man you might learn that FDR was fundamentally opposed to imperialism/colonialism and did everything in his power to see that it would end after the war -- even when those goals conflicted with the interests of our Allies (France and the UK).
You mean when Truman's administration assured France they did not question it's sovereignty in Indochina (http://tinyurl.com/36p2el)? That anti-imperialist/colonialist Truman?
There's nothing in the historical record to suggest that FDR had imperialistic designs/ambitions on anyone, yet you claim we only got involved to secure our "slice of the pie". What is your historical basis for that assumption?
Try reading about the Open Door Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Door_Policy)?
The other half of your arguments boil down to ridiculous statements like "Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history" that are just downright insulting and offensive.
Insulting and offensive because, what, you support slavery and thought the massacre of the American Indians was justified? Or maybe you just thought unofficial discrimination around the time of the war was a good idea? What exactly is insulting and offensive about calling bigotry what it is? Perhaps it's just unpatriotic and should be ignored in support of the nations "good name"?
You ignore or are unaware of the fact that it was the actions/atrocities of the Axis powers that started to erode Isolationist sentiment in the United States and turn public opinion towards the Allies.
I'd use another example from current events to illustrate the disparity between public opinion and national policy, but I fear you'd once again interpret it as Bush bashing. Aside from that, it's not uncommon for the government to spin policy so that it seemingly jives with the popular sentiment.
If that is your belief then it's not likely that we will find any common ground. Nothing I have ever seen or read would lead me to think that Truman made to call to drop the bomb just to "see what it would do". Can you produce any evidence that he did or is it all just a guessing game with the benefit of full historical hindsight?
I've already explained why a scenario like this makes sense to me. It's not based on evidence for the scenario, but evidence against the opposite. That's a perfectly valid form of deduction.
Do you honestly believe that Little Boy was dropped on a live target just as a test? That the American leadership would decide to kill tens of thousands for no purpose other than a "test"?
I find your shock at thinking someone could believe the US government could do something like this a bit amusing. Do you honestly still think we're in Iraq because of WMD? How many have died there for what is just a natural resource grab? Abso-fucking-lutely the government is capable of something like this! This is a facet of something I've been trying to argue. The military can claim justification for a great deal under the auspices of war.
Wow! You almost make it sound as though it was the United States that forced Japan to invade China in the first place. For the historical record, we stopped selling Japan oil and iron because of their despicable actions in China. They responded to that by attacking us without a declaration of war while simultaneously engaging in peace talks. How you can blame the United States for any of that is beyond me. Japan had her own imperialistic designs. We didn't invade China and brutalize millions of people.
WTF? There you go with these leaps into insane conclusions! Why the fuck would I think the US forced Japan to invade China? How does that come from anything I said? Seriously, you need to read what I'm saying more carefully instead of injecting your preconceived notions of what you think I am.
That said, you again assume that the US government gives a shit about the welfare of people in other countries. Again I bring up our government's disinterest in helping the Jews when they were being slaughtered. Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history? We wanted to keep Japan in check because we wanted a piece of the pie. And as for us not invading China and brutalizing the population, perhaps you forgot about our brief and brutal occupation of the Philippines? Or maybe about our extermination of the indigenous people of this land?
Really? Forget the Jewish Holocaust (that recent documentation has said the Wermarcht was complacent in) -- I can think of a few Russian POWs and civilians on the Eastern Front that would take issue with your claim that the German military wasn't "any more or less evil" then our own.
Yes, indeed. Our just cause was liberating a conquered continent and defeating fascism. Their "just cause" was brutalizing entire cultures (the Jews and Slavs) to obtain "living space" for the Reich's Master Race. Those are real relative causes. Do you even realize the nonsense that you are spouting?
Sorry, "I was only following orders" ceased to be a valid excuse after Nuremberg.
You're completely missing my point once again. I'm not comparing the causes. There's a reason Germans today reject nationalism. It's because they're frightened of what it can make people believe and do. I'd be the last person to say that the Nazi cause was just. I'm saying the humans that made up the military were convinced that what they were doing was just, or at least was not morally reprehensible. And just because "I was only following orders" isn't a valid legal defense, that certainly doesn't mean it isn't valid for individuals. Ever hear of the obedience to authority experiments in the '70s? Many participants were traumatized because it was demons
There's nothing in what I said that indicates I think the US is responsible for all the ills of the world
No, but implying that the United States nuked Japan just to "test out some fancy new weapons" hardly indicates an open mind with regards to the United States. Anybody who bothered to open a history book and learn about the debate in the Truman Administration regarding those weapons would know that wasn't the case. We can debate the wisdom of using them until the Sun goes dark but they weren't dropped for the reason that you stated.
The funny thing is that buying into the official reasons for doing things in government without question leads me to believe you don't have a very open mind. I know the official story, but I don't buy it. The original impetus for building nukes was as a deterrent against Germany. I believe the "shorten the war" line, and "all Japanese are combatants" justification were excuses so they could see what the bomb would do in a real scenario. Why not drop one and say there's more where that came from? The first bomb, "Little Boy", was a uranium-based bomb, and that type had never been tested before. Why not drop "Fat Man" first, since the trinity test had already confirmed that plutonium-based bombs worked?
Beyond that, there are economic reasons for keeping Russia out of Japan. If we really cared about the welfare of people in other lands (i.e. your prediction that Russia would have brutalized more civilians than the bombs) we would have entered the war when Hitler was gassing the Jews. But we didn't. We were more concerned about catching up to the other imperial powers, and getting a piece of China and S.E. Asia. We started restricting Japan's access to iron and oil, and you can easily argue that Japan attacked us because of that, not because they were teamed up with Hitler. What if we had simply said "Lets call a truce. We'll get out of your way in China and call it even?" No, we had to blow the shit out of them so we could keep our plans of exploitation.
but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terror
How is a single nuclear weapon dropped on a city anymore of a "weapon of terror" then the firebombing raids conducted by both sides during WW2? Both actions were considered to have legitimate military value at the time. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people then either nuclear blast did. And the concept of "total war" is not a new invention of WW2 either -- go read about Sherman's March to the Sea or the concept of scorched Earth defense.
I'm not trying to compare the death toles of different bombings. My original response was to a post where the author seemed to be saying that our military was some how more righteous than others. My motivation for saying what I did was primarily to show that we committed plenty of atrocities that have very questionable justification as well. The German military in general wasn't any more or less evil than our military. Both sides were fighting for what they thought were just causes. It's generally the leaders at the top that decide to commit genocide or target civilians. The soldiers, for the most part, just do what they're told. If they didn't, their consciences wouldn't allow them to keep fighting. And of course the government is going to say a bombing had strategic value. If they didn't they couldn't justify doing it! Yes you're perfectly valid in bringing up hindsight again to show how easy it is for me to criticize what was done, but I could just as easily argue once again that the fact that we won the war doesn't justify everything we did. That last clause in the previous sentence is the other main point I was trying to make in contrast to the post I responded to originally.
My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifi
First off, many instances of "massive violence" during WWII by the US was the testing of experimental weapons on populations. There was no need to fire bomb German (and Japanese) cities and nuke Japan except to try out some fancy new weapons
Had you chosen to point out some of our actions during the Cold War (like overthrowing the elected Government of Iran or our numerous interventions in Latin America) you might have had the beginnings of a meaningful discussion about US foreign policy. Instead you decided to attack the actions of the United States during WW2 using flamebait'ish statements like "we only nuked them to test our fancy new weapons". As if strategic bombing was unique to the United States during WW2. You realize that all of our enemies and one of our major allies (the UK) did it as well, right?
I'm sorry, but your argument just isn't logical. There's nothing in what I said that indicates I think the US is responsible for all the ills of the world. You're fishing for excuses because you don't like what I said. Sure I could have been less sarcastic (apparently sarcasm is called flame bait now), but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terror. That shouldn't be excused for any military, even the "benevolent" US military.
You realize that if we hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan probably would have wound up divided between the United States and the Soviet Union like Germany did, right?
Yes, and in fact that was in my "redundant" post. I think we're both guilty of idealizing our points of view here. There's no telling how the invasion of Japan would have gone without the nuclear weapons. My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifiable use, even as a means to an end. Others, including yourself, apparently feel that they're use *is* justified under certain circumstances.
I'm sorry, the United States has done some really hypocritical stuff throughout it's history but you lose all creditably by making blanket statements like you did earlier. Go read a history book and learn what was at stake during WW2 and then tell me that in FDR or Churchill's shoes you would have done it differently.
This is such a silly statement (aside from insisting once again that I've not read any US history) because a) none of us were there, b) history texts are always biased, and c) I'm not FDR or Churchill. That said, yes, I honestly believe that if I were President I would not have used weapons of mass destruction. To me it's akin to the torture debate. The cost of using them doesn't justify the possible benefits.
Anyway, if I keep arguing here I'm just going to get more "redundent" mods. Note to self: Don't ever use sarcasm on Slashdot.
Look, I never said or even implied that the US has a monopoly on this kind of shit. I'm just sick of Americans acting like our government has the right to do whatever the fuck they want when they want regardless of the consequences. Just because I'm criticizing the US government's policies doesn't mean I'm holding them solely responsible for everything that's wrong with the world. I really don't understand how that kind of assumption is justified.
Point taken that "genocide" is a little strong to describe the nuking of the Japanese population. I was thinking that myself after I posted. That said, it doesn't detract from the argument that the US should be criticized for what many people believe was an excessive use of force. I acknowledged that the alleged reason by the military for using it was to shorten the war, but a) Japan was in bad shape militarily at that point, and b) we didn't want the Russians to get a piece of the Japanese pie like they did in Germany after taking Berlin. So it's also possible to argue that not only was it not necessary to shorten the war, but that if the bombing did shorten the war it was at least partially to increase our spoils.
As for the rest of your rebuttal, I find nothing terribly wrong with it except your attitude that the big guys naturally screw over the little guys, and that's the way it should be. Granted we don't know either way whether the countries we messed with would have made it on their own, but it's extremely arrogant to think that without the "help" of the US the rest of the world would be a miserable place to live. If European immigrants to North America can create relatively stable countries, why can't Venezuela or any of those other supposed "shit holes"? Unless, of course, you feel white people (in this case I'm excluding Hispanics even though they are also of European descent) are somehow superior by default.
First off, many instances of "massive violence" during WWII by the US was the testing of experimental weapons on populations. There was no need to fire bomb German (and Japanese) cities and nuke Japan except to try out some fancy new weapons. Sure the nukes might have shortened the conflict with Japan, but we would have still won and spared countless civilians at the same time if we had not. It's interesting how genocide by Germany was inexcusable, but genocide by the US can be justified on the grounds that it simply made things easier for the military. Also, maybe the Europeans can overlook mass murder of their own populations by the US since they hated Hitler so much, but it still doesn't mean it was morally justified.
As for the competency of the military, we were certainly not instant experts. We got our butts kicked in Africa for a while until we started to figure things out. And it's a complete distortion of reality to portray the US military as having the ability to simply sweep through and clean up Europe without much effort. There were many hard fought battles, not all of which were won.
Your ignorance continues to show when you claim that Saddam gained power through genocides. I guess you're not aware of the fact that he was working for the US to depose the democratically elected leader that was currently in power. Once that guy was gone, he walked through the door that WE opened for him. Yes violence was part of his tactics for obtaining and maintaining power, but the US gave Saddam the chance just because we didn't like some new democracy getting out of line and nationalizing resources (a very common trend with the US).
Lastly, I don't know where you get this idea that liberals think all ideologies are true or good. And then you say this idea needs to be defended by violence? WTF are you talking about? You completely lost me. No liberal or conservative in their right mind would justify suicide bombings. What you're probably getting confused with is the idea, that more liberals seem to grasp, that the US is at least partially responsible for much of the violence that is plaguing the world (Ron Paul being a rare exception).
The US has engaged in secret, economic imperialism since at least WWII. We've destroyed economies of already poor countries, and demanded their natural resources as payment for their debt to us (disguised as terms for economic "aid"). We've almost made it a policy of deposing democratically elected leaders just because they feel their natural resources should benefit their own populations, not US corporations (Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, etc...). Before and during WWII, we had no sizable arms industry. We simply converted factories over to producing weapons. After WWII the military industrial complex came into being, and has been used primarily to support corporations turn larger and larger profits at the expense of poor countries everywhere. If we can't accomplish that goal through "free trade" agreements (which are skewed in our favor and destroy native industries), or through bribery and coercion of corruptible politicians, we send in the military. And what a surprise, the people in the countries we've screwed over hate us.
A tiered internet is exactly what I was thinking. They haven't gotten their way from Congress, so they have to find some excuse to do it anyway that might pass legal muster. If they can blame copyright infringement for the necessity of blocking certain packets, they can extort money from others by saying it's an ugly truth of the world we live in that some of their packets will occasionally be mistaken for "illegal" packets. For a fee they can hire more people to make the filters more accurate. Then they can go back to Congress and say "See, a tiered internet is necessary!"
Usually grad students in the sciences get stipends for being either a research or teaching assistant. In fact, one school I applied to writes on their web site that a student should reconsider whether he/she should be going to grad school if he/she doesn't get accepted with an assistantship because of the expense. TAs I presume are limited by available undergrad course sessions. RAs are limited simply by funding. I don't know what school your boyfriend is attending, but usually the grad school web site has some indication whether stipends are provided.
Yeah, and it took one of those (the U.S.) nearly two-hundred years to eliminate most disenfranchisement of it's people. And that's a nice way of putting what was being inflicted on the population (i.e. slavery, aboriginal genocide, paying people $0.24 per 12-hour day in horrible working conditions, no voting rights unless you were a white property owning male, forced conscription into the army unless you had enough money to buy your way out, etc...).
My point isn't to ridicule the U.S., but to show that liberty takes time. And to say that democratic countries are somehow slacking if they don't have a fair government within even 50 years is being either ignorant or hypocritical. A democratic government is a start since it gives some leverage to the people. Liberty must be cultivated from within as a society.
Yeah, all those Buddhist monks who have sworn themselves to a life of non-violent self betterment will suddenly go Rambo on the Junto once they have some AKs.
The monks are engaged in a non-violent civil disobedience act. As Ghandi and Martin Luther King demonstrated, these can be much more effective than armed conflict. The monks know this and have the discipline to carry it through. The first time I read about this I knew the Junta's days were numbered. The last thing you would want to do is pull a U.S. on Myanmar by changing the military power balance. That will just undermine what the monks are trying to accomplish.
All we need to know about your country is whether it is nationalizing it's oil industry, and whether it is strong enough to repel an invasion force so we can replace your federal government with puppets (Muppets would be better, but Paul Bremer clones are cheap). Then the "free" press in this country can tell us how much of a threat your country is so we all buy into military action...and then go shopping.
If we got the news directly from your country, how would we ever be able to keep the military industrial complex over here going? That's what keeps us rich, stupid. I mean, duh!
You silly Doctor Who loving Brits (did you see David Tennet on Graham Norton the other day? That was hilarious!). Always trying to stick a monkey wrench into our crony capitalist society. Just remember, we still have some Indians and poor people left over from the first time that we can use to kick your asses again if you start something up in here!
They did this same sort of thing in the web services realm with WS-ResourceTransfer even though WS-ResourceFramework already existed and did everything WS-RT does. They claimed it was a merging of their stuff (WS-Transfer) with WS-RF, but it was really a coup. With WS-RT my original feeling was that they simply didn't want to recode everything to a new standard, so they just forced everyone to accept a superset of what they were using. That's annoying enough as it is, but I can't help thinking it's more than that despite my skepticism of conspiracies.
I can only assume that Microsoft's stance on the open source community is to simply use their clout to get everyone to use their specifications, thus making it seem like they're cooperating with others. In reality they're just forcing their Johny-come-lately garbage down everyone's throat as usual. Unfortunately people want Microsoft on board with standards, so they apparently keep getting duped into doing whatever Microsoft wants them to do in the spirit of pseudo-cooperation. Yes India said "no" to OOXML, but it was qualified with room for negotiation. Don't think that this is a win for open standards just yet. It's not an open standard if only one company gets to dictate what that standard is.
somebody should patent the business process of creating dumb patents for the sole purpose of suing somebody in the future for using the obvious idea. Then when moron companys like MercExchange do this you can sue them for being dick heads.
Slashdot Mirror
That's rather cynical and is oposite of what my experience was. I'm not saying the possibilities were infinite or even large, but my manager encouraged me to express my goals within the organization and to find a way to make it happen with no constraints on my salary. My problem was that I didn't have enough passion to make anything of myself. I ended up going to grad school in Physics (I had a B.S. in Comp Sci) and am currently working on particle track reconstruction and accelerator simulations. That's not to say the OP can't find his passion in a supporting role. There was a lot of cool stuff going on. I was just interested more in the science than in the comp sci part. So my advice is to checkout the national laboratories for job postings.
Your first citation only says that temperatures are lower in the area that was tested. This says nothing about the average temperature of the globe as a whole. I thought this went through the media and was straightened out 6 months ago.
Your second citation, if I'm reading the graph correctly, only lists CO2 levels up until 10,000 years ago! As far as I know there were no industrialized nations 10,000 years ago that were putting unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the air artificially. It is well known that rising temperatures can cause out gassing. That's all this study shows, really. If anything it warns us that if we artificially increase the temperature then there will be a positive feedback loop that will make things worse.
Your third point, though appreciated for it's words of caution, is basically suggesting that computer models are useless because they are tricky. That's ridiculous. It's like saying predictions made by scientific theories are useless because we're not sure that the predictions will be true. The models are made to fit past data and have been tested since they were written and found to be reasonable at least for the short term. You can scoff at that, but there's really nothing else you can ask of these models.
Finally, give me one example of a credible scientist (i.e. not being payed by fossil fuel companies) who has published a peer reviewed article that directly contradicts the general consensus and who has had their career destroyed.
Ah, so they don't understand that you can still use Carbon 14 proportions that are smaller than 1/2 what would be there in a living organism.
That's even better than thinking they pulled the number out of thin air. It's yet more evidence that they don't know what the fuh they're talking about.
Thank you for bringing this up! The -ism was an invention of the IDers in an attempt to make support of evolution into an ideology so that they could fight it on religious fairness grounds.
Many of the comments on the NY Times site are worth reading in this regard. The essay is over reacting and is just feeding into the creationist propaganda that scientists are ideologically equivalent to creationists. Biologists don't use the term, but now everybody thinks they do. Good job!
Control was supposed to be retained by the ruling elite, not the people. Working people have had to struggle from the very beginning against gross inequality between themselves and the rich and powerful. Also, originally one couldn't vote unless one was male and owned property, and much of that property was grabbed by those who were already rich and powerful enough back in England to get away with it.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights may say it reserves any undelegated power to the states or the people, but can anyone name a single instance where the people actually have a direct say in what happens? The Bill of Rights was more of just a device to placate the masses in order to avoid revolt.
People act like the government has gone horribly astray, but I believe it's just gotten fatter. Our experiment in faux democracy worked quite well for a while; but now that the people have been lulled into a permanent state of complacency, the government has hardly anything to do but become more and more corrupt.
As the article mentions, this policy was easily abused in the past. I frankly don't see any reason to use it except to monitor dissidents. If you have good reason to suspect an individual, I don't see why it's so hard to just get a fucking warrant. It just gives me more of this feeling that the government doesn't even care if we know they're totally fucking corrupt anymore. What the hell are the people going to do about it? Stage a protest in a big city? Oooh, I'm sooo scared!
I've lived here for over 15 years. My family has been here for ~50 years. I'm writing what I have seen and continue to see both from my perspective as an employer, as the son and grandson of "white traders" as well as someone who ran the Rez for a couple of years myself. The successes are people who have had to fight "their own" tooth and nail just for a chance.
I'm certainly not trying to get into a pissing match with you, but my understanding was that, for starters, you had to be Navajo to hold office on the rez. Am I mistaken or am I misinterpreting what you mean by "ran the Rez"?
Some if not all of these will have people that can do the work.
Point taken. Also, Fort Defiance hospital had a functioning WiFi network as well as IP phone capabilities extended to the housing compound, so I'm assuming there are Navajo around that can handle WiFi repeaters.
NACA is managing to get things done by avoiding the tribal government, but I don't think this can be accomplished without buy-in from Window Rock.
I'd agree with that. Having one site wired (or not wired as the case may be) for internet is one thing. Getting permission for placing WAN infrastructure no matter how minimally intrusive can't circumvent the government. At some point you'd have to access a telephone pole or something.
By that logic, they should have a lower expectation that someone else is going to take care of them, not more.
Certainly there are people who take this train of thought, but I know for certain there are others who feel like they should milk the feds for anything they can get on account of the fact that the feds continuously screw them over.
I meant and still do mean that if they want anything to be different they have to take steps to make the change. Word it however you want, "The lord helps those who help themselves," if that makes it any better.
I understand, but it's a bit unfair to expect them to want change if that means becoming more like the white man. In other words, they may be disinclined to change in the direction of bettering themselves if it means assimilating to white culture.
I was going to address xenophobia, but I don't think it adds to the conversation.
Well you brought it up, so now I'm curious. ;-)
Most people would just give up. You can't complain that there are no opportunities, yet stifle any attempt to better yourself.
So then I presume she didn't give up? I don't mean to drag this out, but isn't it kind of bad to use a contrary example in an attempt to prove your point? And actually this doesn't even do that. There's nothing here about this lady encountering jealousy from fellow Navajo.
When I brought up the crab bucket mentality, I was basing that on a conversation that I had with a woman who had moved off the reservation with her husband. [...] When family members heard about the health insurance they were admonished to drop the coverage because, "you're not better than us".
Unfortunately this example has nothing to do with entrepreneurial hurdles. I'm not saying the Navajo are saints. I'm sure there is plenty of jealousy for those Navajo that leave and become successful. But I lived on the reservation for over three years and saw much stronger factors than jealousy with respect to why the economy is practically non-existent.
They will take an entire day off of work to drive 50 miles each way to the IHS clinic where they won't have to pay instead of go to a doctor in town and pay their $25.00 deductible (and not have to miss any work)
I agree that that's a bit extreme from a financial point of view. I would recommend holding judgment without knowing their reasons, though. For example, this could be simply because they are more comfortable with the staff at that particular hospital. The Navajo tend to be reserved when first meeting people (especially outsiders), but once they know you they often treat you like family. Or it could be they'd prefer not to go to a "white man" hospital. I'm not condoning xenophobia like that, but after the way they've been treated I'm not surprised. Many of them still visit the medicine man.
Back on the original topic: an OSS type solution might work. [...] It would require serious buy-in from the powers that be and it would need to require the tribal government to do something.
Aside from the lack of technical workers to maintain the system and limited funding, I agree the next biggest hurdle is the tribal government. And that's pretty much the story for any infrastructure issue on the rez.
This is another problem for them. There is a sense of entitlement that's pervasive.
At risk of sounding like an apologist, I again have to suggest an open mind here. Considering that the federal government has rarely (if ever) come through on it's treaty obligations with the tribe, I'm not surprised nor would I look down on any Navajo for having such an attitude.
That said, they are trying to become more independent. There's at least one hospital that is either planning to or already has weened itself from federal funding because the Navajo in general do desire to be independent. Of course there is wide skepticism as to whether they could possibly afford it given the economic situation on the rez, but they are trying.
They've had a year to think about a different solution, which could include the tribe actually paying for their own satellite connection, instead of the FCC grant.
I can't argue with this. I think anybody with any knowledge of the rez knows the government is a bureaucratic nightmare. But again, I don't think it's fair to just chalk it up to personal failings of the residents. Like any poverty stricken population, poor management of infrastructure is a common symptom.
Perhaps. The real answer may be along the lines of the old joke, How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but the bulb has to want to change.
You mean, "Just one, but the bulb has to want to assimilate into a culture that was forced upon it".
You have a point, but something about this line of thinking stinks. I supposed it's that it seems more like an excuse to avoid feeling compelled to help people who have gotten the short end of the stick. It just perpetuates the "sucks to be you" culture that's especially prevalent in the US. We should just be as greedy as possible, ignoring the plight of anyone else. Some people call it the "culture of independence", but I just think it's a lack of compassion.
Furthermore, when are we going to consider conquering people as an unacceptable practice? If we don't take responsibility for recent actions of this sort, there's no precedent for the future on how governments should act. If you think our government is above this now, consider the fact that we're occupying two countries as we speak...er...type. Different circumstances, sure, but the same solution.
Perhaps we still are just apes with big brains.
I wouldn't say that the "crab bucket mentality" is what's primarily keeping enterprising individuals from staying on the reservation. The quality of primary education is quite bad, and most young people go into the military because they can't afford or don't know about higher education opportunities, leave the rez for work, or end up jobless if they decide to stay with their people and their culture. So even if you could create a working business model that accounted for the high overhead of having a business on the reservation, there aren't any knowledge workers to operate your business. Furthermore, you can't recruit non-Navajo workers from off the reservation because of "Navajo preference" in hiring, and the fact that you can't realistically live outside of government housing compounds restricted to employees of the schools and hospitals.
I don't mean to act as if your entire post was wrong, because it isn't. The tribal government is definitely messed up in more ways than just business policy. But I'd be careful in blaming the people themselves for the dearth of opportunity on the reservation. The Navajo I know encourage "learning from the white man, but coming back to help [their] people". Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to make a living even if you're educated. How can jealousy of other's entrepreneurial success be a significant factor when there's very little entrepreneurial success to speak of?
Yeah you're right, if the entire hull is charged either positively or negatively, the deflection would be (roughly) away or toward the planet. And, as you alluded to, you'd still need propellant to alter the satellite's speed if you want the orbit to remain circular and not decay.
For some reason I was thinking they were only charging portions of the hull to cause the satellite to rotate like gyroscopes are used to do. In other words, a dipole configuration traveling through a B field (axis parallel to the tangential velocity vector) should get deflection one way at one pole and another way at another pole, twisting the satellite.
While what you said is true about the magnetic force (the Lorentz force is actually the sum of the electric and magnetic forces), it doesn't mean satellites need propellant only for boosting their orbit radius. Merely rotating a satellite back into alignment wouldn't involve crossing gravitational potential lines, but would require propellant to create a torque unless one uses gyroscopes or the planet's magnetic field.
And I find your attempt to link the modern day policies of GWB to a discussion about WW2 to be pretty amusing.
Because we all know that history has no bearing on the present (that's sarcasm in case you missed it). My point, since it is once again been missed, is that our government is capable of such things. This was by no means a cheap attack on Bush. I just figured a modern day example might ring more true with you.
If you bothered to do any study of the man you might learn that FDR was fundamentally opposed to imperialism/colonialism and did everything in his power to see that it would end after the war -- even when those goals conflicted with the interests of our Allies (France and the UK).
You mean when Truman's administration assured France they did not question it's sovereignty in Indochina (http://tinyurl.com/36p2el)? That anti-imperialist/colonialist Truman?
There's nothing in the historical record to suggest that FDR had imperialistic designs/ambitions on anyone, yet you claim we only got involved to secure our "slice of the pie". What is your historical basis for that assumption?
Try reading about the Open Door Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Door_Policy)?
The other half of your arguments boil down to ridiculous statements like "Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history" that are just downright insulting and offensive.
Insulting and offensive because, what, you support slavery and thought the massacre of the American Indians was justified? Or maybe you just thought unofficial discrimination around the time of the war was a good idea? What exactly is insulting and offensive about calling bigotry what it is? Perhaps it's just unpatriotic and should be ignored in support of the nations "good name"?
You ignore or are unaware of the fact that it was the actions/atrocities of the Axis powers that started to erode Isolationist sentiment in the United States and turn public opinion towards the Allies.I'd use another example from current events to illustrate the disparity between public opinion and national policy, but I fear you'd once again interpret it as Bush bashing. Aside from that, it's not uncommon for the government to spin policy so that it seemingly jives with the popular sentiment.
If that is your belief then it's not likely that we will find any common ground. Nothing I have ever seen or read would lead me to think that Truman made to call to drop the bomb just to "see what it would do". Can you produce any evidence that he did or is it all just a guessing game with the benefit of full historical hindsight?
I've already explained why a scenario like this makes sense to me. It's not based on evidence for the scenario, but evidence against the opposite. That's a perfectly valid form of deduction.
Do you honestly believe that Little Boy was dropped on a live target just as a test? That the American leadership would decide to kill tens of thousands for no purpose other than a "test"?
I find your shock at thinking someone could believe the US government could do something like this a bit amusing. Do you honestly still think we're in Iraq because of WMD? How many have died there for what is just a natural resource grab? Abso-fucking-lutely the government is capable of something like this! This is a facet of something I've been trying to argue. The military can claim justification for a great deal under the auspices of war.
Wow! You almost make it sound as though it was the United States that forced Japan to invade China in the first place. For the historical record, we stopped selling Japan oil and iron because of their despicable actions in China. They responded to that by attacking us without a declaration of war while simultaneously engaging in peace talks. How you can blame the United States for any of that is beyond me. Japan had her own imperialistic designs. We didn't invade China and brutalize millions of people.
WTF? There you go with these leaps into insane conclusions! Why the fuck would I think the US forced Japan to invade China? How does that come from anything I said? Seriously, you need to read what I'm saying more carefully instead of injecting your preconceived notions of what you think I am.
That said, you again assume that the US government gives a shit about the welfare of people in other countries. Again I bring up our government's disinterest in helping the Jews when they were being slaughtered. Why would we care about the Chinese, especially considering our bigoted culture and history? We wanted to keep Japan in check because we wanted a piece of the pie. And as for us not invading China and brutalizing the population, perhaps you forgot about our brief and brutal occupation of the Philippines? Or maybe about our extermination of the indigenous people of this land?
Really? Forget the Jewish Holocaust (that recent documentation has said the Wermarcht was complacent in) -- I can think of a few Russian POWs and civilians on the Eastern Front that would take issue with your claim that the German military wasn't "any more or less evil" then our own.
Yes, indeed. Our just cause was liberating a conquered continent and defeating fascism. Their "just cause" was brutalizing entire cultures (the Jews and Slavs) to obtain "living space" for the Reich's Master Race. Those are real relative causes. Do you even realize the nonsense that you are spouting?
Sorry, "I was only following orders" ceased to be a valid excuse after Nuremberg.
You're completely missing my point once again. I'm not comparing the causes. There's a reason Germans today reject nationalism. It's because they're frightened of what it can make people believe and do. I'd be the last person to say that the Nazi cause was just. I'm saying the humans that made up the military were convinced that what they were doing was just, or at least was not morally reprehensible. And just because "I was only following orders" isn't a valid legal defense, that certainly doesn't mean it isn't valid for individuals. Ever hear of the obedience to authority experiments in the '70s? Many participants were traumatized because it was demons
There's nothing in what I said that indicates I think the US is responsible for all the ills of the world
No, but implying that the United States nuked Japan just to "test out some fancy new weapons" hardly indicates an open mind with regards to the United States. Anybody who bothered to open a history book and learn about the debate in the Truman Administration regarding those weapons would know that wasn't the case. We can debate the wisdom of using them until the Sun goes dark but they weren't dropped for the reason that you stated.
The funny thing is that buying into the official reasons for doing things in government without question leads me to believe you don't have a very open mind. I know the official story, but I don't buy it. The original impetus for building nukes was as a deterrent against Germany. I believe the "shorten the war" line, and "all Japanese are combatants" justification were excuses so they could see what the bomb would do in a real scenario. Why not drop one and say there's more where that came from? The first bomb, "Little Boy", was a uranium-based bomb, and that type had never been tested before. Why not drop "Fat Man" first, since the trinity test had already confirmed that plutonium-based bombs worked?
Beyond that, there are economic reasons for keeping Russia out of Japan. If we really cared about the welfare of people in other lands (i.e. your prediction that Russia would have brutalized more civilians than the bombs) we would have entered the war when Hitler was gassing the Jews. But we didn't. We were more concerned about catching up to the other imperial powers, and getting a piece of China and S.E. Asia. We started restricting Japan's access to iron and oil, and you can easily argue that Japan attacked us because of that, not because they were teamed up with Hitler. What if we had simply said "Lets call a truce. We'll get out of your way in China and call it even?" No, we had to blow the shit out of them so we could keep our plans of exploitation.
but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terror
How is a single nuclear weapon dropped on a city anymore of a "weapon of terror" then the firebombing raids conducted by both sides during WW2? Both actions were considered to have legitimate military value at the time. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people then either nuclear blast did. And the concept of "total war" is not a new invention of WW2 either -- go read about Sherman's March to the Sea or the concept of scorched Earth defense.
I'm not trying to compare the death toles of different bombings. My original response was to a post where the author seemed to be saying that our military was some how more righteous than others. My motivation for saying what I did was primarily to show that we committed plenty of atrocities that have very questionable justification as well. The German military in general wasn't any more or less evil than our military. Both sides were fighting for what they thought were just causes. It's generally the leaders at the top that decide to commit genocide or target civilians. The soldiers, for the most part, just do what they're told. If they didn't, their consciences wouldn't allow them to keep fighting. And of course the government is going to say a bombing had strategic value. If they didn't they couldn't justify doing it! Yes you're perfectly valid in bringing up hindsight again to show how easy it is for me to criticize what was done, but I could just as easily argue once again that the fact that we won the war doesn't justify everything we did. That last clause in the previous sentence is the other main point I was trying to make in contrast to the post I responded to originally.
My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifi
You justified that assumption with this line:
First off, many instances of "massive violence" during WWII by the US was the testing of experimental weapons on populations. There was no need to fire bomb German (and Japanese) cities and nuke Japan except to try out some fancy new weaponsHad you chosen to point out some of our actions during the Cold War (like overthrowing the elected Government of Iran or our numerous interventions in Latin America) you might have had the beginnings of a meaningful discussion about US foreign policy. Instead you decided to attack the actions of the United States during WW2 using flamebait'ish statements like "we only nuked them to test our fancy new weapons". As if strategic bombing was unique to the United States during WW2. You realize that all of our enemies and one of our major allies (the UK) did it as well, right?
I'm sorry, but your argument just isn't logical. There's nothing in what I said that indicates I think the US is responsible for all the ills of the world. You're fishing for excuses because you don't like what I said. Sure I could have been less sarcastic (apparently sarcasm is called flame bait now), but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terror. That shouldn't be excused for any military, even the "benevolent" US military.You realize that if we hadn't bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan probably would have wound up divided between the United States and the Soviet Union like Germany did, right?
Yes, and in fact that was in my "redundant" post. I think we're both guilty of idealizing our points of view here. There's no telling how the invasion of Japan would have gone without the nuclear weapons. My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifiable use, even as a means to an end. Others, including yourself, apparently feel that they're use *is* justified under certain circumstances.I'm sorry, the United States has done some really hypocritical stuff throughout it's history but you lose all creditably by making blanket statements like you did earlier. Go read a history book and learn what was at stake during WW2 and then tell me that in FDR or Churchill's shoes you would have done it differently.
This is such a silly statement (aside from insisting once again that I've not read any US history) because a) none of us were there, b) history texts are always biased, and c) I'm not FDR or Churchill. That said, yes, I honestly believe that if I were President I would not have used weapons of mass destruction. To me it's akin to the torture debate. The cost of using them doesn't justify the possible benefits. Anyway, if I keep arguing here I'm just going to get more "redundent" mods. Note to self: Don't ever use sarcasm on Slashdot.Look, I never said or even implied that the US has a monopoly on this kind of shit. I'm just sick of Americans acting like our government has the right to do whatever the fuck they want when they want regardless of the consequences. Just because I'm criticizing the US government's policies doesn't mean I'm holding them solely responsible for everything that's wrong with the world. I really don't understand how that kind of assumption is justified.
Point taken that "genocide" is a little strong to describe the nuking of the Japanese population. I was thinking that myself after I posted. That said, it doesn't detract from the argument that the US should be criticized for what many people believe was an excessive use of force. I acknowledged that the alleged reason by the military for using it was to shorten the war, but a) Japan was in bad shape militarily at that point, and b) we didn't want the Russians to get a piece of the Japanese pie like they did in Germany after taking Berlin. So it's also possible to argue that not only was it not necessary to shorten the war, but that if the bombing did shorten the war it was at least partially to increase our spoils.
As for the rest of your rebuttal, I find nothing terribly wrong with it except your attitude that the big guys naturally screw over the little guys, and that's the way it should be. Granted we don't know either way whether the countries we messed with would have made it on their own, but it's extremely arrogant to think that without the "help" of the US the rest of the world would be a miserable place to live. If European immigrants to North America can create relatively stable countries, why can't Venezuela or any of those other supposed "shit holes"? Unless, of course, you feel white people (in this case I'm excluding Hispanics even though they are also of European descent) are somehow superior by default.
First off, many instances of "massive violence" during WWII by the US was the testing of experimental weapons on populations. There was no need to fire bomb German (and Japanese) cities and nuke Japan except to try out some fancy new weapons. Sure the nukes might have shortened the conflict with Japan, but we would have still won and spared countless civilians at the same time if we had not. It's interesting how genocide by Germany was inexcusable, but genocide by the US can be justified on the grounds that it simply made things easier for the military. Also, maybe the Europeans can overlook mass murder of their own populations by the US since they hated Hitler so much, but it still doesn't mean it was morally justified.
As for the competency of the military, we were certainly not instant experts. We got our butts kicked in Africa for a while until we started to figure things out. And it's a complete distortion of reality to portray the US military as having the ability to simply sweep through and clean up Europe without much effort. There were many hard fought battles, not all of which were won.
Your ignorance continues to show when you claim that Saddam gained power through genocides. I guess you're not aware of the fact that he was working for the US to depose the democratically elected leader that was currently in power. Once that guy was gone, he walked through the door that WE opened for him. Yes violence was part of his tactics for obtaining and maintaining power, but the US gave Saddam the chance just because we didn't like some new democracy getting out of line and nationalizing resources (a very common trend with the US).
Lastly, I don't know where you get this idea that liberals think all ideologies are true or good. And then you say this idea needs to be defended by violence? WTF are you talking about? You completely lost me. No liberal or conservative in their right mind would justify suicide bombings. What you're probably getting confused with is the idea, that more liberals seem to grasp, that the US is at least partially responsible for much of the violence that is plaguing the world (Ron Paul being a rare exception).
The US has engaged in secret, economic imperialism since at least WWII. We've destroyed economies of already poor countries, and demanded their natural resources as payment for their debt to us (disguised as terms for economic "aid"). We've almost made it a policy of deposing democratically elected leaders just because they feel their natural resources should benefit their own populations, not US corporations (Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, etc...). Before and during WWII, we had no sizable arms industry. We simply converted factories over to producing weapons. After WWII the military industrial complex came into being, and has been used primarily to support corporations turn larger and larger profits at the expense of poor countries everywhere. If we can't accomplish that goal through "free trade" agreements (which are skewed in our favor and destroy native industries), or through bribery and coercion of corruptible politicians, we send in the military. And what a surprise, the people in the countries we've screwed over hate us.
A tiered internet is exactly what I was thinking. They haven't gotten their way from Congress, so they have to find some excuse to do it anyway that might pass legal muster. If they can blame copyright infringement for the necessity of blocking certain packets, they can extort money from others by saying it's an ugly truth of the world we live in that some of their packets will occasionally be mistaken for "illegal" packets. For a fee they can hire more people to make the filters more accurate. Then they can go back to Congress and say "See, a tiered internet is necessary!"
Usually grad students in the sciences get stipends for being either a research or teaching assistant. In fact, one school I applied to writes on their web site that a student should reconsider whether he/she should be going to grad school if he/she doesn't get accepted with an assistantship because of the expense. TAs I presume are limited by available undergrad course sessions. RAs are limited simply by funding. I don't know what school your boyfriend is attending, but usually the grad school web site has some indication whether stipends are provided.
Yeah, and it took one of those (the U.S.) nearly two-hundred years to eliminate most disenfranchisement of it's people. And that's a nice way of putting what was being inflicted on the population (i.e. slavery, aboriginal genocide, paying people $0.24 per 12-hour day in horrible working conditions, no voting rights unless you were a white property owning male, forced conscription into the army unless you had enough money to buy your way out, etc...).
My point isn't to ridicule the U.S., but to show that liberty takes time. And to say that democratic countries are somehow slacking if they don't have a fair government within even 50 years is being either ignorant or hypocritical. A democratic government is a start since it gives some leverage to the people. Liberty must be cultivated from within as a society.
Yeah, all those Buddhist monks who have sworn themselves to a life of non-violent self betterment will suddenly go Rambo on the Junto once they have some AKs.
The monks are engaged in a non-violent civil disobedience act. As Ghandi and Martin Luther King demonstrated, these can be much more effective than armed conflict. The monks know this and have the discipline to carry it through. The first time I read about this I knew the Junta's days were numbered. The last thing you would want to do is pull a U.S. on Myanmar by changing the military power balance. That will just undermine what the monks are trying to accomplish.
All we need to know about your country is whether it is nationalizing it's oil industry, and whether it is strong enough to repel an invasion force so we can replace your federal government with puppets (Muppets would be better, but Paul Bremer clones are cheap). Then the "free" press in this country can tell us how much of a threat your country is so we all buy into military action...and then go shopping.
If we got the news directly from your country, how would we ever be able to keep the military industrial complex over here going? That's what keeps us rich, stupid. I mean, duh!
You silly Doctor Who loving Brits (did you see David Tennet on Graham Norton the other day? That was hilarious!). Always trying to stick a monkey wrench into our crony capitalist society. Just remember, we still have some Indians and poor people left over from the first time that we can use to kick your asses again if you start something up in here!
They did this same sort of thing in the web services realm with WS-ResourceTransfer even though WS-ResourceFramework already existed and did everything WS-RT does. They claimed it was a merging of their stuff (WS-Transfer) with WS-RF, but it was really a coup. With WS-RT my original feeling was that they simply didn't want to recode everything to a new standard, so they just forced everyone to accept a superset of what they were using. That's annoying enough as it is, but I can't help thinking it's more than that despite my skepticism of conspiracies.
I can only assume that Microsoft's stance on the open source community is to simply use their clout to get everyone to use their specifications, thus making it seem like they're cooperating with others. In reality they're just forcing their Johny-come-lately garbage down everyone's throat as usual. Unfortunately people want Microsoft on board with standards, so they apparently keep getting duped into doing whatever Microsoft wants them to do in the spirit of pseudo-cooperation. Yes India said "no" to OOXML, but it was qualified with room for negotiation. Don't think that this is a win for open standards just yet. It's not an open standard if only one company gets to dictate what that standard is.
somebody should patent the business process of creating dumb patents for the sole purpose of suing somebody in the future for using the obvious idea. Then when moron companys like MercExchange do this you can sue them for being dick heads.