2,321 Forum Posts by "Musician"
At 12/18/08 09:35 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Prisoners would make better subjects for psychological than physiological/medical experiments. There's so much we could learn from the criminal mind. We could find the things that trigger their kind of behavior, helping us prevent it on future generations.
He's not interested in that kind of research because it's not sadistic enough.
At 12/15/08 10:29 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I would suggest doing away with minimum wage laws
There's really no point. The current federal minimum wage is below poverty level. People cannot live on that level of income as it is; decreasing it won't do anything besides possibly make the problem worse. Besides, most companies that require unskilled labor have already outsourced to countries in Africa and South America, where labor is much cheaper than it ever could be in the US, with or without minimum wage.
Also, your plan to remove wage protections strictly from black neighborhoods wouldn't be socially accepted, and would be appropriately tagged as a racist policy.
Ask for more than you want. Then "settle" with him for less if he doesn't go for it.
At 12/14/08 04:57 PM, animehater wrote: Now you're just marginalizing the conflicts currently going on in the world.
And you're just marginalizing the fact that the majority of the world is at peace right now.
Why is it then, that the vast majority of the world is at peace right now, and has been for the greater part of the last 2 centuries? Sure, there may be conflicts in some areas of the world, but the vast majority of the world is at peace, and has been for some time.
At 12/8/08 06:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: Now you might point out that MIT offers other services to its students than just lectures that allows them to get students, and you'd be right. But bands produce things other than straight MP3s, no?
And where exactly do indie game designers fall under your thesis? People who lack the resources to distribute hard copies of their product in stores and rely on online downloads from services like steam? What services can they offer besides the product itself? Without copyright laws, what obligates download services to pay royalties to the developers?
The reload button doesn't appear to be working
At 12/6/08 12:02 PM, Rideo wrote: It's rising because we're coming out of the little ice age. When you come out of an ice age, usually the temperature rises...
That's the same as saying that the climate is getting warmer because the climate is getting warmer. Coming out of an Ice Age is an effect, not a cause.
What about the graph I've posted already that shows that arctic air temperature corresponds directly with solar activity while being completely unaffected by the increase in hydrocarbon usage?
I honestly don't know what is up with your graph. It's already been established in the scientific community that sun activity has declined since the 70's. We know this because of data collected by radiometers on European and US spacecraft. I find it interesting that your article presents facts that seem to differ from what's already been proven.
And this demonization of CO2 is ridiculous. CO2 is a trace gas, it makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 yet the amount of average water vapor in the atmosphere is 1%.
The percentage of the atmosphere it takes up isn't relevant. Green house gases are the sole contributors to global warming. To produce a more relevant statistic you would have to recognize what percentage of the GHGs in the atmosphere each gas accounts for . Even then, the statistic wouldn't be completely accurate, you still have to account for how effective each green house gas is at trapping infrared radiation.
You mention water vapor. It's true that water vapor contributes to the green house effect. In fact it accounts for about 60-70% of global warming. However, you also have to recognize that water vapor isn't a gas that acts on it's own. By that I mean, the amount of water vapor in the air is attributed directly to the temperature. The hotter it is, the more water vapor the atmosphere can contain.
Carbon Dioxide is a gas that on it's own can be attributed to about 25% of climate change. Not only that, but when Carbon Dioxide enters the atmosphere, it stays there for about 100-200 years, as opposed to water vapor which can only stay in the atmosphere for several weeks. So when Carbon Dioxide output soars like it has the last couple of decades, it causes a significant and much more permanent increase in temperature. This allows the atmosphere to contain more water vapor which in turn increases the temperature further.
Long story short: just because CO2 can be classified as a trace gas doesn't mean that it has little or no effect on climate change.
At this point we are 1 degree lower than the medieval climate optimum, so it would be a good thing to see a rise in temperature actually. Warmer temperatures cause less storms, it's also known to raise comfort levels in humans and make them more amiable and empathetic.
I've never heard that Global Warming causes less storms, but I know that it's been shown to make storms more violent. When Hurricane Katrina passed over the warm waters of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico, it caused a massive increase in wind speed. Katrina went from a category 3 hurricane to a category 5 hurricane because of it's contact with warm water.
Furthermore, even if that is true, the detriments of global warming far outweigh it's benefits. An increase in temperature can cause glaciers to melt and shorelines to rise. Causing floods in some areas of the world and droughts in others. Africa's agriculture output could halve by 2020 under the current predictions. Similarly, China's grain production will be cut by 5-10% by 2030. The social ramifications of this drop in resources could increase the number of displaced civilians across the world due to military and economic factors. There's a lot more to be worried about than there is to be relieved about.
Yes, the US climate has improved. Oh and what? This article isn't biased! They clearly state that the sea level is rising, which is not a good thing, this isn't the article of some crazed foaming at the mouth right winger denouncing everything the left has to say or something like that, this is article is made by real climate scientists making observations on the climate. And what they've found is, hydrocarbon use does not make the climate warmer, we are in a natural trend proceeding at a natural rate and the climate is more stable than it was previously, but the sea level is rising.
There are plenty of reasons to think the article is biased. For one, the author of the article (Arthur Robinson) is a signatory on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a petition including 100 scientists who express skepticism of the evolutionary theory. He's also a proclaimed conservative christian. Given the fact that the article has a lot of charts and statistics that I feel are subject to question given my previous knowledge on the subject, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of this article's neutrality.
At 12/7/08 09:18 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I watched the first five seconds of the video and it said that Obama was born while Bush was in office. If that were true he would still be a young child.
No... really?
At 12/5/08 09:22 PM, JackTipper wrote: If you look at the graph it's been falling for a few years.
A few years? 3 years. A far cry away from the "decade" you were heralding earlier in this thread. And even if it was a decade, you can't look at climate on such a small scale. If you were to look at the climate change we've been experiencing over the last half century you would realize that since the mid-1900's the global climate has been rising at an alarming rate. What would be considered a normal year today would be considered a particularly warm year several decades ago.
Climate always changes there is nothing new about this. Calling it global warming when its hot and saying it can't be determined if its getting colder when it's cool sounds like normal climate being propagated. If it's been getting cooler over a few years then it sounds like climate it taking a cooler turn same vice versa.
The are no serious institutions claiming that climate change is a reality because of a decade of warming; that could be easily written off. The problem is that there has been more than just a decade of warming; there have been several decades of warming. Obviously there are anomalies from time to time where the climate is warmer or cooler than usual, but the overall trend is an increase in temperature.
The word global warming means just that and the meaning these corrupt climatologist are trying to expand it to is disgusting.
Do you have any reason be calling these scientists corrupt? Just pure bias?
The sun is the biggest influence on not just our climate but on our solar system. When it has its hot spots I'm pretty sure we're gonna feel it more than some guys drive in his old 64' Ford galaxy to his girls house to get some nookie.
Well there's obviously more than several people causing this. Carbon Dioxide is a produced by all forms of industry and machinery. It adds up to a bit more than "some guys driving in their old 64's". I also agree that the sun has it's part in global warming, but Carbon Dioxide is playing the dominant role. There's just not enough sun activity to explain the recent increase in temperature.
Are you being sarcastic or did you really not read the article you linked to? It's says right there in the section you quoted that climate scientists don't believe this means global warming has slowed. Observations of global warming are based on long term trends. Just because the climate dropped this year doesn't mean that it won't continue to rise the next year.
Hey guys, Edmund and I have finished putting together a new collaborative piece, packed to the brim with maps that were submitted by you, the players. We're now entering final bug-testing before the release, so we invite you to play through the game a bit early, enjoy yourself, and report any glitches or bugs you find along the way.
Have fun and thanks again. We'd be nothing without your support.
At 12/4/08 10:59 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Finally got my gears 2 for my 360, gonna go play for a few dozen hours now.
Tell me how that works out. I haven't gotten it yet because it looks exactly like the first gears. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if it's going to be the same game then I think I'll wait a while to buy it.
At 12/4/08 09:01 PM, n64kid wrote: No good student discount? I've had one for quite a bit. But as SF said, take it to Chuck E Cheeses and get some free tokens.
Oh, well my rates are somewhat lower. I thought you meant they actually handed out cash.
At 12/4/08 05:06 PM, n64kid wrote: Car insurance companies also pay kids for good grades, based on GPA.
When did this happen? My car insurance company hasn't paid me a dime for my 4.0 GPA.
Only an uninformed moron would want to disband the UN. We're talking about an agency that coordinates just about every international effort in the world, including air trafficking (ICAO), sea travel (IMO), telecommunications (ITU), postage (UPU), and even weather forecasting in order to help reduce the impact of potential natural disasters (WMO). Not to mention the fact that the UN does a general service to the world by providing a forum for international issues. By saying "we should disband the UN", you're essentially saying we should disband all of our coordination and communications with other countries.
Look Canadians, I'm not going to get involved in the debate, since I know very little about your country and the arguments in this thread look like they could potentially turn very bitter (much like what happens between Republicans and Democrats, here in the good ol' USA).
However I must implore you to consider one very crucial fact if you're considering re-election. Your current Prime Minister looks like a penis.
At 11/30/08 10:56 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: This is where I stopped reading. Pakistan is not a nuclear power. They are attempting to create a nuclear program but they do not have nuclear weapons.
What are you talking about? Pakistan has had nukes since the mid-90's.
The problem, Al, is that Bennet trivializes Chomsky's position on the issue. Chomsky isn't anti-american, he's not even anti-america, he presents arguments against the foreign policy conducted by the leadership of the country, not the country itself. Notice how Chomsky never refers to the US as a "terrorist nation" in the debate? It's because that argument was a strawman fabricated by Bennet. Chomsky refers to the US as a nation that commits "terrorist acts". That doesn't mean that he thinks that the US is "evil", nor does that mean that Chomsky has some sort of moral obligation to leave the country. Bennet just wants you believe that because that makes his faulty arguments look more appealing than they actually are.
At 11/26/08 12:51 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes they are at the high end of provisioning in terms of African/Third World militias. Furthermore, I'm not underestimating the strength of the militia. If you look at my original post you'll see that I address the issue of air support provided by the Sudanese government. That is why I advocate "no-fly" zones where we blow them out of the sky when they threaten a village.
I guess I got the wrong impression when you started reffering to their vehicles as "technicals". I'm sure they use those, but the Janjaweed also have access to tanks, other armored vehicles, and bomber aircraft, which have been used to wreak massive destruction on certain villages in Darfur. At the very least, you were incorrect when you called the operating costs of the Janjaweed militia "negligible".
My analysis comes from studying sanction efficacy and Non-Government militaries (ie: militias and terrorists). Yes the Sudanese government is providing some funding to the militia making it a quasi-government entity. However, if the warlords decide they want to press their campaign after loosing government funds they will find the way. Body armor and air support in this situation are luxuries...not necessities.
They are luxuries that make a significant difference in how effective they are. If they lose bombers, and tanks and all of their other "luxuries", suddenly the residents of Darfur have a whole lot less to worry about. It might not stop them completely, but it effectively cripples them.
Sanctions probably made the situation worse as worse. They give oppressive regimes justifications to "clean house" and send people to prison camps or just outright execute them. In short the "peaceful" solution more often than not is counter-productive and produces nothing more than more suffering.
The Sudanese government is already "outright executing" the residents of Darfur. They don't need a justification for their actions, they've already crossed the line. There's hardly anything they could do to make it worse at this point. Even if there was, I doubt they'd wait for an excuse to begin doing it.
I'm not making that fatal mistake and it shows that you have missed my point. Genocides happen because there is an arms imbalance. That is why I did not advocate giving the non-Arabs tanks. Think of it as MAD writ small. We have seen this in so many genocides in the last half of the 20th Century. It only happens when one side is at a gregious disadvantage in terms of guns. (I'm thinking I could have a paper for one of my courses next semester.)
There are plenty of ways to solve an arms imbalance. Removing weapons from the other side is just as effective and much less destructive. The problem is that you're evaluating the detriments of an imbalance of arms and you're disregarding the problems cause by a balance of arms. While an arms imbalance can create genocide, an arms balance can lead to a much more destructive and longer lasting war.
As any legitimate authority on MAD theory will tell you, there's always a chance that "deterrence" can backfire. If you argue for supplying arms to the other side, you also have to realize that you're making a gamble that the detterence factor will work as planned. In a region like Darfur, where conflicts are driven by ethnic clashes that go back decades, that's a bad gamble.
I will give you that there may be a small degree of perceived difference. However, it is not significant enough (based on recent experience) to expect any more success from an AU peacekeeping force than a Western.
You have a point, but putting support behind an impartial foreign peacekeeping presence is still a better course of action then pumping more arms into a voilent conflict. The AU is more likely to be interested in enforcing a ceasefire and less likely to pick fights based on ethnicity. I admit that the AU isn't ideal, but it's the best shot for stability in this particular reason.
At 11/26/08 01:51 AM, Al6200 wrote: I read that as him saying "the ends justify the means" more or less. In other words any illegal activities we did to change the government in Nicaragua were canceled by the ultimate outcome.
Maybe, we could argue all day about whether or not the Nicaragua incident was really about spreading democracy, and whether or not the people of Nicaragua benefited more than they lost. Lets not do that in this thread. Whether or not the ends justify the means is irrelevant. For the US to engage in "terrorist" activities and at the same time condemn them is sheer hypocrisy. By the US's own definition, the United States has engaged in terrorist activities. Now in that light, tell me how Bennet even came close to adressing Chomsky's argument.
I also thought that Bennett's argument about the Khemer Rouge was particularly potent, assuming that it's true.
More like a textbook case of poisoning the well. "Dont listen to his arguments! he's a scoundrel!"
I think Bennet won rhetorically by backing Chomsky into a corner like that, but when I go back and look at his arguments they're not as strong as Chomsky's. For example, when Chomsky was talking about the US attacking "soft targets" (civilian targets) in Nicaragua, Bennet responded by noting that all the lawsuits were dropped after Chamorro took office. Sorry, but I don't see how that particular argument excuses the US from deliberately attacking civilian targets.
Mason, I think I see where the misunderstanding is. The Janjaweed are not like the usual militia you'll find in Africa, they are much more heavily armed. It's true that the AK-47 is a commonly used weapon in the Sudan Military (which the Janjaweed has essentially become a part of now), however they also have access to modern weaponry such as assault helicopters and fighter aircraft. Many of these vehicles take hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase and maintain. Not exactly something that you can buy with a chicken. Furthermore, the Sudanese government does provide body armor to many of it's troops, albiet not all of them. The Sudanese government also provides their troops with rations. Steak and potatoes or not, rations certainly factor into the maintenance costs of their military.
The problem with your analysis is that you're making the assumption that the Janjaweed is similar to any other African militia, when in reality the Janjaweed is being backed by the well funded Sudanese government. They are much more technoligically advanced than the other African rebel movements you're associating them with.
Secondly, I disagree entirely with you're analysis of the situation. Giving the other side more weapons will only increase tension in the region. Even if it does provoke a short term peace such acts could have devastating long term effects. For example, if one side becomes a significant threat it may provoke further military expansion by the Sudanese government, which in turn would increase the destructive outcome of any potential war.
Not to mention you're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that "Group Y" is only looking to defend themselves. Such is not the case. "Group Y" has shown clear hostility towards those of arab ethnicity. Most likely "Group Y" would attempt to use it's new power to perform genocide on "Group X" as well. It's also quite possible that "Group Y" might become too ambitious and provoke a retaliation that would lead to an even larger more widespread slaughter of their race. Your detterence theory sounds great, in theory, but unfortunately you're not going to be the one making strategic decisions for them, and you cannot predict what they will do with their weapons.
Finally on the topic of the African Union. It is true that they are a foreign presence, however it is not the same as the US presence in Iraq. AU peacekeepers are Africans, usually of similar cutural backgrounds as the refugees in the Sudan, which makes the inhabitants of the Sudan more likely to accept the presence of the peace keepers (and also makes the peace keepers more likely to be considerate of the sudanese citizens). It's also important to note that the African Union represents Africa as a whole and not an individual country. This also makes Sudanese citizens more likely to be accepting of an AU presence.
At 11/24/08 08:40 PM, TheMason wrote: Sanctions simply are not going to work, you're not going to get China and other countries on board and that ain't gonna happen.
It is happening though, just about every country that could potentially make a difference has embargoed the Sudan with the exception of China. The "other countries" including the US, France, and Britain have already placed economic sanctions on the Sudan. China has just decided to take advantage of it and buy up all their oil. This can be solved pretty easily by threatening economic sanctions against China.
Furthermore, the weapons that the Janjanaweed militia are using are not all that expensive. In short there is no reason to believe that sanctions would work in this situation where they fail in just about every other situation.
You're not accounting for vehicles, rations, fuel, body armor, and of course the constant supply of ammunition needed to maintain a military force; not to mention you have to multiply that by the sheer numbers of soldiers that they maintain. The Sudan is incredibly dependent on exports, without them they would have virtually no money. Even if the resources they need are cheap they'll still need to make tremendous cutbacks.
This is not Iraq and Vietnam. This is more closely related to Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda. Furthermore, there never was any fighting...it is slaughter all because one side has arms and the other does not. What I am saying does not invovle an invasion or occupation which produces a foreign presence which in turn cause the problems we saw in Iraq and Vietnam. A similar approach saw success in Yugoslavia.
Fine, it will re-ignite the "slaughter" if you will. I'm not sure exactly where you get the idea that arming the other side would lead to good things. If you have a man with a gun threatening another man with a gun, giving the other man a gun isn't necessarily the right idea, especially if you have very good reason to believe that both those men are willing to use their guns. The appropriate response is to take the gun from the first man. In this analogy taking the gun from the first man means stopping the flow of funds and weapons into the Sudan.
Now another thing I want to bring up in this part of the conversation is that not only is China buying the vast majority of their exports, China is also providing the Sudanese government with the vast majority of their weapons. Apparently the Sudan recieves 90% of it's weapons from China. Just another reason why the US must place pressure on China in this situation.
And as for it being "demented"...this is just an ad homineum and appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Right now when there is no fighting we should do nothing to de-stabilize the situation. However, if the fighting re-ignites then there is no viable non-violent alternative. Sanctions, especially in terms of humanitarian objectives are ineffectual and as such hardly constitute a "viable" alternative.
I'm sorry Mason but you have yet to make a convincing argument against a trade embargo on the Sudan. It's true that most likely the weapons that the Janjaweed militia uses are cheap and somewhat easy to come by, but that does not mean that a enormous loss in funds will be "ineffectual" in preventing them from receiving supplies. At the very least the government will not have nearly enough money to continue funding them in such large numbers, and they'll revert to what they previously were before they recieved government funding: A resistance that can threaten some amount of damage, but doesn't pose a significant threat to an entire race of people.
What impact it would have would be negated by a switch to illicit activities such as human trafficking, drugs, blood diamonds, arms running, etc.
None of the activities that you listed can fully compensate for the loss of oil exports.
In short, they do not care because their survival does NOT depend upon the economic forces that we in the West are accustomed to.
No but their government funding does. I'm not suggesting that it would wipe out the Janjaweed entirely, but it would certainly deal a devastating blow for them to lose virtually all of their funding and around 90% of their arms. Their existence as a well funding military force does in fact depend on economic forces like trade.
On another note I am in support of giving more funding and supplies to the African Union; I'm just not in favor of giving similar funding and weaponry to rebel movements inside of Darfur. The difference is that the African Union is a force that's shown itself to be more interested in preserving the stability of the region, and less interested and wiping one side out. Of course, any increase of funding to the AU should be accompanied by the previously mentioned economic sanctions.
At 11/24/08 07:02 PM, TheMason wrote: Sanctions and embargos are simply useless. The data on this is quite clear.
I respectfully disagree, the Sudan relies heavily on it's oil exports. If they were to loose their ability to sell oil to China, the Sudanese government would lose the vast majority of it's funding. At the very least this would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the "rebel" militias.
* Small arms such as M-16s and AK-47s. I would also provide a number of humvees armed with .50 calibur machine guns in proportion to the Janjaniweed (sp?) militia's arsenal of similar vehicles.
* Air support. Whenever a helicopter takes off and heads toward a village, a F-16, F-15 or F/A-18 can shoot it down.
Military approaches to domestic conflicts end badly. This is the lesson we should have taken from Iraq and Vietnam. Furthermore, arming the other side would only serve to re-ignite the fighting, and cause more deaths. It's demented to suggest such a thing, especially when there's a viable non-violent alternative.
The simple truth is these people do not care about international economics. What they care about is gathering as much power and wealth relative to others in their country. The horrendous atrocities are correlated to the arms imbalance.
It doesn't really matter if they care or not. They simply wont be able to buy arms without selling oil.
At 11/24/08 06:55 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: its genocide you fucking noob and and it was rebels who instigated it and the government reacted its the AUs problem not ours so who the fuck cares.
The government "reacted"? You are aware that the government of Darfur is funding the Janjaweed right? Not the mention, the African Union has already tried to end the violence in Darfur; they got beaten pretty badly. the AU just doesn't have the resources to engage a problem like this effectively.
So, getting back on track. I personally think we should help, but I think using military force would be a big mistake. The world community has talked a lot about an all out embargo on the Sudan, which would stop them from generating enough revenue to buy arms to support their genocide. Unfortunately, China doesn't want to comply with this, and is basically single-handedly funding the Darfur Genocide by buying oil from them.
Thus, I think the best solution is just for the US to threaten to stop trade with China unless they embargo the Sudan.
Looks to me like they have a legitimate argument. They realized they lost their phone, called back to McDonalds, and were assured that it would be kept secure until they could return to claim it. Later the photo's ended up on the internet, along with their personal information. They had to move to a new house because of this. I would be pissed too.
At 11/22/08 06:17 PM, therealsylvos wrote: thats an easy one, he was running against Obama...
He wasn't running against Obama when the news of his affair came to light. Your claim makes absolutely no sense.
At 11/21/08 07:11 PM, homor wrote: thats from a non-partisan group by the way, so please don't say to me "oh yeah well they're probebly a biased conservative group."
Not really, a quick wiki search reveals that they received the overwhelming majority of their funds from conservative foundations.
