User talk:StuRat/archive1

Vicious comments from others (and a few that aren't)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, StuRat/archive1! I'm Celestianpower. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article

There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or add {{helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! --Celestianpower ^talk 09:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your question

In response to your question: Right, well, firstly re-enable Java, that can't help. And secondly, GET Firefox!!! Its safer, more secure, more customisable, easier yto use, not made by money-raged lunatics ...etc... Get firefox website. If you do these 2 things and it still doesn't work; come back and we'll see again. Let me know if it does/doesn't. Good luck! --Celestianpower ^talk 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. Just go to The Firefox homepage then. --Celestianpower ^talk 21:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My To Do List

1) Add redirects to "Euclidean distance" from:

  "point-distance formula",  "point-distance equation", 
  "point/distance formula",  "point/distance equation",
  "point distance formula",  "point distance equation",
  "point-distance formulas", "point-distance equations", 
  "point/distance formulas", "point/distance equations",
  "point distance formulas", "point distance equations",
  "point-distance formulae", 
  "point/distance formulae",
  "point distance formulae",
  "pt-distance formula",  "pt-distance equation", 
  "pt/distance formula",  "pt/distance equation",
  "pt distance formula",  "pt distance equation",
  "pt-distance formulas", "pt-distance equations", 
  "pt/distance formulas", "pt/distance equations",
  "pt distance formulas", "pt distance equations",
  "pt-distance formulae", 
  "pt/distance formulae",
  "pt distance formulae"

  "point to point-distance formula",  "point to point-distance equation", 
  "point to point/distance formula",  "point to point/distance equation",
  "point to point distance formula",  "point to point distance equation",
  "point to point-distance formulas", "point to point-distance equations", 
  "point to point/distance formulas", "point to point/distance equations",
  "point to point distance formulas", "point to point distance equations",
  "point to point-distance formulae", 
  "point to point/distance formulae",
  "point to point distance formulae",
  "pt to pt-distance formula",  "pt to pt-distance equation", 
  "pt to pt/distance formula",  "pt to pt/distance equation",
  "pt to pt distance formula",  "pt to pt distance equation",
  "pt to pt-distance formulas", "pt to pt-distance equations", 
  "pt to pt/distance formulas", "pt to pt/distance equations",
  "pt to pt distance formulas", "pt to pt distance equations",
  "pt to pt-distance formulae", 
  "pt to pt/distance formulae",
  "pt to pt distance formulae"

  "point-to-point-distance formula",  "point-to-point-distance equation", 
  "point-to-point/distance formula",  "point-to-point/distance equation",
  "point-to-point distance formula",  "point-to-point distance equation",
  "point-to-point-distance formulas", "point-to-point-distance equations", 
  "point-to-point/distance formulas", "point-to-point/distance equations",
  "point-to-point distance formulas", "point-to-point distance equations",
  "point-to-point-distance formulae", 
  "point-to-point/distance formulae",
  "point-to-point distance formulae",
  "pt-to-pt-distance formula",  "pt-to-pt-distance equation", 
  "pt-to-pt/distance formula",  "pt-to-pt/distance equation",
  "pt-to-pt distance formula",  "pt-to-pt distance equation",
  "pt-to-pt-distance formulas", "pt-to-pt-distance equations", 
  "pt-to-pt/distance formulas", "pt-to-pt/distance equations",
  "pt-to-pt distance formulas", "pt-to-pt distance equations",
  "pt-to-pt-distance formulae", 
  "pt-to-pt/distance formulae",
  "pt-to-pt distance formulae"

  "two point-distance formula",  "two point-distance equation", 
  "two point/distance formula",  "two point/distance equation",
  "two point distance formula",  "two point distance equation",
  "two point-distance formulas", "two point-distance equations", 
  "two point/distance formulas", "two point/distance equations",
  "two point distance formulas", "two point distance equations",
  "two point-distance formulae", 
  "two point/distance formulae",
  "two point distance formulae",
  "two pt-distance formula",  "two pt-distance equation", 
  "two pt/distance formula",  "two pt/distance equation",
  "two pt distance formula",  "two pt distance equation",
  "two pt-distance formulas", "two pt-distance equations", 
  "two pt/distance formulas", "two pt/distance equations",
  "two pt distance formulas", "two pt distance equations",
  "two pt-distance formulae", 
  "two pt/distance formulae",
  "two pt distance formulae"

  "2 point-distance formula",  "2 point-distance equation", 
  "2 point/distance formula",  "2 point/distance equation",
  "2 point distance formula",  "2 point distance equation",
  "2 point-distance formulas", "2 point-distance equations", 
  "2 point/distance formulas", "2 point/distance equations",
  "2 point distance formulas", "2 point distance equations",
  "2 point-distance formulae", 
  "2 point/distance formulae",
  "2 point distance formulae",
  "2 pt-distance formula",  "2 pt-distance equation", 
  "2 pt/distance formula",  "2 pt/distance equation",
  "2 pt distance formula",  "2 pt distance equation",
  "2 pt-distance formulas", "2 pt-distance equations", 
  "2 pt/distance formulas", "2 pt/distance equations",
  "2 pt distance formulas", "2 pt distance equations",
  "2 pt-distance formulae", 
  "2 pt/distance formulae",
  "2 pt distance formulae"

  "point point-distance formula",  "point point-distance equation", 
  "point point/distance formula",  "point point/distance equation",
  "point point distance formula",  "point point distance equation",
  "point point-distance formulas", "point point-distance equations", 
  "point point/distance formulas", "point point/distance equations",
  "point point distance formulas", "point point distance equations",
  "point point-distance formulae", 
  "point point/distance formulae",
  "point point distance formulae",
  "pt pt-distance formula",  "pt pt-distance equation", 
  "pt pt/distance formula",  "pt pt/distance equation",
  "pt pt distance formula",  "pt pt distance equation",
  "pt pt-distance formulas", "pt pt-distance equations", 
  "pt pt/distance formulas", "pt pt/distance equations",
  "pt pt distance formulas", "pt pt distance equations",
  "pt pt-distance formulae", 
  "pt pt/distance formulae",
  "pt pt distance formulae"

  "point-point-distance formula",  "point-point-distance equation", 
  "point-point/distance formula",  "point-point/distance equation",
  "point-point distance formula",  "point-point distance equation",
  "point-point-distance formulas", "point-point-distance equations", 
  "point-point/distance formulas", "point-point/distance equations",
  "point-point distance formulas", "point-point distance equations",
  "point-point-distance formulae", 
  "point-point/distance formulae",
  "point-point distance formulae",
  "pt-pt-distance formula",  "pt-pt-distance equation", 
  "pt-pt/distance formula",  "pt-pt/distance equation",
  "pt-pt distance formula",  "pt-pt distance equation",
  "pt-pt-distance formulas", "pt-pt-distance equations", 
  "pt-pt/distance formulas", "pt-pt/distance equations",
  "pt-pt distance formulas", "pt-pt distance equations",
  "pt-pt-distance formulae", 
  "pt-pt/distance formulae",
  "pt-pt distance formulae"

  "point/point-distance formula",  "point/point-distance equation", 
  "point/point/distance formula",  "point/point/distance equation",
  "point/point distance formula",  "point/point distance equation",
  "point/point-distance formulas", "point/point-distance equations", 
  "point/point/distance formulas", "point/point/distance equations",
  "point/point distance formulas", "point/point distance equations",
  "point/point-distance formulae", 
  "point/point/distance formulae",
  "point/point distance formulae",
  "pt/pt-distance formula",  "pt/pt-distance equation", 
  "pt/pt/distance formula",  "pt/pt/distance equation",
  "pt/pt distance formula",  "pt/pt distance equation",
  "pt/pt-distance formulas", "pt/pt-distance equations", 
  "pt/pt/distance formulas", "pt/pt/distance equations",
  "pt/pt distance formulas", "pt/pt distance equations",
  "pt/pt-distance formulae", 
  "pt/pt/distance formulae",
  "pt/pt distance formulae"

  "two-point-distance formula",  "two-point-distance equation", 
  "two-point/distance formula",  "two-point/distance equation",
  "two-point distance formula",  "two-point distance equation",
  "two-point-distance formulas", "two-point-distance equations", 
  "two-point/distance formulas", "two-point/distance equations",
  "two-point distance formulas", "two-point distance equations",
  "two-point-distance formulae", 
  "two-point/distance formulae",
  "two-point distance formulae",
  "two-pt-distance formula",  "two-pt-distance equation", 
  "two-pt/distance formula",  "two-pt/distance equation",
  "two-pt distance formula",  "two-pt distance equation",
  "two-pt-distance formulas", "two-pt-distance equations", 
  "two-pt/distance formulas", "two-pt/distance equations",
  "two-pt distance formulas", "two-pt distance equations",
  "two-pt-distance formulae", 
  "two-pt/distance formulae",
  "two-pt distance formulae"

  "2-point-distance formula",  "2-point-distance equation", 
  "2-point/distance formula",  "2-point/distance equation",
  "2-point distance formula",  "2-point distance equation",
  "2-point-distance formulas", "2-point-distance equations", 
  "2-point/distance formulas", "2-point/distance equations",
  "2-point distance formulas", "2-point distance equations",
  "2-point-distance formulae", 
  "2-point/distance formulae",
  "2-point distance formulae",
  "2-pt-distance formula",  "2-pt-distance equation", 
  "2-pt/distance formula",  "2-pt/distance equation",
  "2-pt distance formula",  "2-pt distance equation",
  "2-pt-distance formulas", "2-pt-distance equations", 
  "2-pt/distance formulas", "2-pt/distance equations",
  "2-pt distance formulas", "2-pt distance equations",
  "2-pt-distance formulae", 
  "2-pt/distance formulae",
  "2-pt distance formulae"

Style remarks

Hi and welcome. I have some remarks. First remark is that when you write math, you should not just write x^n, rather <math>x^n</math> which will show up as $x^{n}$.

Also, for big formulas, you need to write them in a new line like this:

:<math>x^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\dots+a_0</math>

which becomes

$x^{n}+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\dots +a_{0}$

(don't forget the ":" before the math tags).

The second remark is your recent changes to polynomial interpolation. I commented at talk:polynomial interpolation. Wonder what you think. Oleg Alexandrov 02:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those style recommendations, they were quite useful. I made the changes you suggested here and also responded to your concerns on the talk:polynomial interpolation page. StuRat 04:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The page move

Hi StuRat. I agree with Jitse that the contents you added is more helpful at curve fitting rather than at polynomial interpolation, especially since the former was an empty article while the latter was a good enough article already. I would invite you to edit the article curve fitting. I did a bit of changes, and I also plan to contribute more. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov 23:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Remark. According to the Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics, one should write ''n''+1 rather than ''n+1''. Also, 1/R is better than 1/R. These are very small things. Oleg Alexandrov 23:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, the n+1 seems to cause the n and the + to overlap, at least on my browser. I wonder what their reason is for this strange standard ? I think some illustrations would be helpful, especially showing various degree polynomial curves and how they fit a given set of points. The current set of illustrations under interpolation all seem to use the exact same curve. StuRat 23:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

To get to the very top of the article, use the edit button at the top of the page. :) Oleg Alexandrov 00:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I know how, but get an error when I do so, or when I type in the web address directly. I have already reported the error, and hope to get a fix soon. StuRat 00:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's fixed ! StuRat 03:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

US English vs. British English ?

I was wondering if there is any convention on which to use here. England, Ireland, Wales, etc. have one version on English and the US has another. Australia, New Zealand, and most other former British colonies speak a language closer to British English while Canada is midway between US and British English. In former US colonies, like Cuba and the Philippines, and countries that do business with the US, those who speak English tend to speak the US version. So, I don't really know which is more widespread. Then again, this site is of UK origin, right ? So, should I write:

"I collected me mate's mum after driving me lorry along the dual carriage-way to her flat, taking the lift, and knocking her up."

Or:

"I picked up my friend's mother after driving my truck along the divided highway to her apartment, taking the elevator, and knocking on the door."

Note that "knocking her up" would mean "impregnating her" in US English !

<Unsigned comment made at 18:15 on August 9 2005 by StuRat>

Please remeber to always sign and date entries.

I'm English and would never say either. I would say, "I picked up my friend's Mum after driving my truck along the dual carriage-way to her flat, taking the lift and knocking on the door."

As to your question, it is a long and arduous one.

• If you're talking about a person prodominantly English (in a biographical article) then use British English. Eg, Charlie Chaplin.
• If you're talking about a person prodominantly American however (in a biographical article) then use American English. Eg, Martin Luther King Jr.
• If you're talking about an item or brand name prodominantly English or English in Origin, then use British English. Eg, Harry Potter.
• If you're talking about an item or brand name prodominantly American or American in Origin however, then use American English. Eg, McDonalds.
• If you are talking about a place or locale that is in the UK, use British English. Eg, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
• If you are talking about a place or locale that is in the USA, use American English. Eg, Ohio.
• If the subject matter cannot be connected to either the UK or the USA then use the language that you would use normally and as long as you're consistant then it's OK.n I would prefer you to use British English (because I hate Americanisms) but I am not in control of Wikipedia (no-one is) so do whatever comes naturally in this last case.

By the way, in the UK "knocking her up" means impregnating her also.

Hope that helps! --Celestianpower ^talk 17:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That is incomplete. Part of the policy is that you follow the style used by the first significant contributor and do not arbitrarily change styles of existing documents. This user seems to have some association with several accounts that have broken that policy repeatedly. --ToobMug 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Question on Massive Redirects

I edited an article, Euclidean distance, to which I can come up with thousands of possible redirects, including:

1. point distance formula
2. pt/dist equation
3. pt-to-pt formulas
4. 2D pt/pt distance equations
5. 2 pt distance formulae

Do I need to define them all independently, or is there some way to compose them like this:

"2D |3D |" &

"2|two|" &

" |-|/|" &

"point|pt|pt.|" &

" |-|/|" &

"to|" &

" |-|/|" &

"point|pt|pt." &

" |-|/" &

"distance|dist|dist.|" &

" |-|/|" &

"formula|formulae|formulas|equation|equations"

--StuRat 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No - sorry but each redirect must be made separately. If you don't already know, this is the wikiSyntax:

#REDIRECT A Series of Unfortunate Events

Where "A Series of Unfortunate Events is the page it redirects to. Hope that helps! --Celestianpower ^talk 20:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Question about section-watching

Is there a way to just watch a specific section ? I have made some minor changes to some huge pages, like Terrorism:Talk and Tea, and now my watchlist is inundated with changes to these articles completely unrelated to my change. If this isn't currently possible, where can I make the suggestion that this ability be added ? StuRat 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No - currently you can't watch sections. Sorry. Try requestion it at The village pump proposals section. Happy watching! --Celestianpower ^hab 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried requesting it, but that link didn't work. StuRat 19:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The link now works. --Celestianpower ^hab 20:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No - currently you can't watch sections. Sorry. Try requestion it at [village pump proposals section]. Happy watching! --Celestianpower ^hab 17:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Often when I'm only interested in just one section of a really long article, I suggest on the talk page that the article is too long and needs to be split into several articles. Later, when it's broken into several articles, I can watch just the article I'm interested in. --DavidCary 23:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

I have just appeared on RFA and I wondered if you would vote/leave your comment. Thank you. Here's a link! —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 13:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How to use images from commons ?

I added 3 images to inflection point, but afterwards realized I should have put them in Wiki commons. I loaded the 3 images there, under the same name, but I can't get rid of the images I uploaded to Wikipedia. How do I get rid of those and redirect the inflection point article to find the illustrations under the same name in Wiki commons ? StuRat 08:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Why would you want to delete them? I'm not very good with images, sorry, but from what I can gather, just link them exactly the same as you would had they been at commons...

If not, try asking a question at the Village Pump. Sorry I can't help more but that's the best I can do. :( By the way, have you thought about voting at my RfA? LOL! --Celestianpower ^{hab | myRFA} 09:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Commons

See the entry on Wikipedia Commons and pages at the commons, especially Commons:Commons:about, commons:commons:licensing, especially Commons:Commons:Licensing#Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on the Commons. Commons is a repository of free images, i.e. GFDL, cc-by-xx, etc cc-by-sa-xx, etc. Fair use is not allowed. Dunc|☺ 12:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and can you also use png format for diagrams with lots of straight lines please? They're better than pngs. Also, gifs aren't technically free, because they have patents on them, though they're not enforced. Dunc|☺ 12:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah. That's tricky because of the gif patent owned by Unisys means that it free software can't support gifs. [1]. You probably should have a look at the GIMP, though that doesn't support gifs. Aah, what am I talking about? Yes, of course, (thinking as I'm typing), download the GIMP and you will have to take images through bmp format or through the clipboard before saving them out. Hope that works. Dunc|☺ 12:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Boolean algebra

No, you can't intersect elements, but you can apply the operations \land and \lor to them. What you get out of that operation is part of the structure of the Boolean algebra in question. Please don't put "subset" back; it's not correct. --Trovatore 19:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

StuRat, the topic of the article is not a subject area called "Boolean algebra", mass noun, but rather about a sort of algebraic structure called "a Boolean algebra", which is a count noun. That's the first problem with your intro. The more serious one is, no, it's not about "combining sets", particularly.

I think you have in mind a different notion, "Boolean algebra" as a mass noun, which computer scientists and so on sometimes talk about. Please see my proposal in the talk page, Talk:Boolean algebra#Proposal; maybe you'd like to write the Boolean algebra (logical calculus) article. --19:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"basic concepts" article

I think you're missing the point. The study of Boolean algebras is not a "more complex" version of what you call "Boolean algebra"; it's another topic entirely (though certainly with connections). A Boolean algebra is an algebraic structure, like a group or a ring, and there's no reason its article should be less technical than those. Except, of course, to accomodate those who are looking for the other notion, the one called "Boolean algebra" as a mass noun. But those folks are simply in the wrong place; this article isn't for them. The accomodation given them should be a dab notice at the top. --Trovatore 21:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

wikiproject math discussion

Hi StuRat,

I saw you weighed in. Sorry, I should have pointed you to the current discussion--the place you commented is kind of old. The current discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Boolean_algebra.2C_redux. --Trovatore 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Stu, we seem to be involved in multiple edit conflicts; besides Boolean algebra, there is surface and wave-particle duality. I suggest that perhaps you should ask yourself about whether you are knowledgable in the topics you are attempting to edit, and, perhaps consider refraining from edits when you are not. I have no particular desire to fight, and I am finding it quite unpleasant to have expend my energy arguing. You are not making WP a better encyclopedia by inserting factually incorrect material into articles, nor are you helping the WP community by arguing indefensible positions. linas 19:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Stu, Saw your reply on my talk page. You misunderstand. I was reverting your edits because the information contained in them was wrong. I agree with you in that I strongly believe that WP articles should be simpler, easier and clearer. I practice this policy with all my edits. However, simplifying something is no good if it makes it wrong. The information you were adding was incorrect.

Please, I really do not want to argue with you. Again, when you add material, please try to self-edit. Ask yourself: "did my changes actually make it easier for the reader?". Review your changes, and try to make sure that they are correct. And when you encounter a subject you don't have much experience with, don't just dive in with edits. In particular, if you don't already understand everything written in an article, then don't edit the article. linas 03:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, the "i" before "e" except after "c" rule works for about 40% of the words in the english langauge. So, please, do not try to say that it is a rule. WaterIce 15:51, 08 November 2005 (PST)

Use External Editor by Default

Thanks for showing me how to fix my bug problem StuRat - very much appreciated. Oldhamlet 08:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Just popping in to say hello. We haven't spoken in a while. How are you? :) --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm Ok, how are you ? You're an admin now, right ? I've been active in Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience, would you be interested in helping us out there as an editor ? StuRat 19:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a look now and it looks likes something very worthwhile. :) Lookingup your talk page, you seem to be very unpopular, why? --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you wouldn't think so, but making articles accessible to a wide audience draws many objections. The reason is that, in order to make an understandable introduction, it is necessary to simplify things a bit, with the goal of adding in all the complexities later. So, for example, I would describe an electron as a particle orbiting an atom's nucleus, and the experts would say, "No, you idiot, it's a probability function which is collapsed when it is observed !". PhD's tend to utterly reject simple models as a teaching tool, and thus utterly reject any such model I introduce. So far, I've only been successful when I've "cloned" the overly complex article and added simple introductions to the clone. StuRat 21:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol - I know a bit about electrons and I challenged my Physics teacher about that one. I just left a message that you might like to see at talk:Boolean algebra. I doubt if I'll get anywhere. :) Certainly a worthwhile project. Thanks for letting me know about it. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Were you on the side of the simple or complex electron model ? StuRat 22:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that introduction = simple, rest = complex. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked at your comments and agree. That's why I made the Boolean logic article, because any simplifications I added to Boolean algebra were summarally reverted. The term Boolean algebra is most definitely used to mean the same thing as Boolean logic, but the PhD's who think they "own" the article refuse to allow any description of any concept other than the one they are familiar with. I had a similar problem with surface, a general term with many meanings. I tried to add some descriptions of how a surface is defined in computer models, but they refused to allow any discussion other than their particular mathematic surface definition. I ended up writing the new article computer representation of surfaces.

I particularly like this quote:

"I doubt that it's practical in all cases to impose the understandability requirement you propose."

In other words, "we are going to make this article so complex that nobody but a PhD can understand any part of it, and if you don't like it, too bad".StuRat 22:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, they're so single-minded it's scary. I'll look at one of your attempts through the history to get a proper meaning. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it that way, I was only able to get fragments of introductory material into Boolean algebra before each was reverted. Instead, check out Boolean logic. I still had some interferences from PhD's there, but was generally able to make it easier to understand. StuRat 23:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I would encourage you to add the {{technical}} tag to articles which are written in a way that is more complex than they need be. That produces the following template and brings it to the attention of those working to simplify such articles:

{{technical}}

StuRat 23:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a comment here. Your intention of making articles acessible is laudable. My objection is that on occasions you attempt to "make better" articles on topics you don't have a good grasp on, and then you don't quite know how to finish things. The older example is the discussion about boolean algebras, and more recently the issue was with surface, as the current computer representation of surfaces is a bunch of different things but no coherent structure (see also Talk:Computer representation of surfaces). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Inertia to be eliminated from article on inertia

In another paradox of life, a person who does not believe in inertia is furiously editing inertia and destroying the hard work of many good folks who do believe that the concept is valid.

Isn't it amazing how some folks with slightly educated opinions will believe so strongly, and with such unwarranted conviction, that they have the truth? i don't know if it's due to arrogance, ignorance, or both? Or from a desire just to stir up hackles and argue? --Kenny56 06:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sandpaper revert

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on the sandpaper page. However, I have discovered a much easier way of doing that. See Wikipedia:Revert. Basically, you go to the edit history, click on the version you want to revert to, and then click on edit. You get a message saying that you are editing an out of date version. Ignore & click on save. Presto, done! It took me a while before I found out about this feature and went through the tedious process you just used a number of times. :-( Luigizanasi 17:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ! That will be very helpful. I'd previously heard that reverts were easier for admins, so figured they made them intentionally difficult for non-admins, to discourage edit wars. StuRat 18:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

You said the consensus was to delete this article, despite the majority voting to keep it. You claim that the KEEP votes are sockpuppets, but what proof do you have of this ? They certainly aren't sockpuppets of me. Are they all from the same I/P address or are you just going off the fact that they have not filled out their user pages ? They aren't all from about the same time, which I would expect, if they were sockpuppets. StuRat 12:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to remove the comment. I think it's perfectly well suited there, and I will re-post it. As for your comments about the sockpuppets, I blocked them because they all seem to have similar contributions. I appreciate you going to two of the users whose vote I discounted and asking them to fill in their page, but a) this is not the reason why I objected, and b) I noticed you did not post a comment on the pages of the users that are suspected to be sock puppets of you. The reason why I did not count the votes of these users (about 7 of them), was because new users with very few edits can not have a say in Articles for Deletion discussions.

The user that posted the {{sockpuppet}} template on the user pages of those suspected to be your sockpuppets looked at your contributions, as well as the contributions of those users, and decided they were very similar. Too similar. While you may not be a puppeteer, I have blocked those users as violators of the 3RR, sockpuppetting, and general trolling. According to WP:SOCK, "sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits." While the users in question did not use edit summaries (much like yourself), they did indeed show a familiarity with Wikipedia policy, and were created to disrupt WP:AfD and Wikipedia itself. They all voted on the same deletion discussions, didn't state why they wanted to keep the articles, except to say "Keep per [other user]", and did not state a further reason why, even when the other user's reason was inaccurate. Sockpuppets come and go, as does the interest of their puppetmaster, and this would create a discrepancy in time, plus the added time it takes to log in or out. The fact that none of these users posted at the same time as each other leads one to believe they are sockpuppets.

While I appreciate your contributions to notable articles, I am concerned by your addage of "dictionary definitions" and articles on unimportant topics to Wikipedia. If you have any objections to these policies, I am more than willing to reconsider. If, however, you continue (or start) to act irrationally, you will be blocked. Thanks and happy editing, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)}

P.S. I wrote a completed version of this post spanning several paragraphs, but lost my work due to a browser crash, so please excuse any apparent lapses in logic, though I'm happy to defend them upon request. Too bad this isn't Gmail (I wish WP had autosave). Happy editing, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)}

First off, threatening to block me is inappropriate, I've been quite civil and have followed all the rules, to the best of my ability. Now, to address your specific points:

• I had no idea any of those were suspected of being sockpuppets of me. If you have such an accusation I would like it to be made openly, so I can check for simultaneous contributions or other means to clear my name. I wanted to put a note on all 3 of the redlined users, who, I thought, were the only ones suspected of being sockpuppets. One wasn't logged in, and I forget if I put that note on their talk page or not. I didn't think the other one with the blue link was suspected. The fifth user was me, not a sockpuppet of me.

• The logic that "comments made at different times are evidence of sockpuppets" seems thouroughly flawed, since the likelihood of two random comments being made within a close time period is quite low to begin with.

• I would like some examples of "dictionary definitions or unimportant articles". I have sometimes added stubs, most often when I find a redlined link in an article and I can add the basics, particularly if I can add a pic. If I recall correctly, the linen closet article was a redlined link in the Brady Bunch article.

• Regarding my vote to KEEP the article, you implied "user's reason was inaccurate". What do you mean ?

• After you arrive at a decision on a deletion request, you should summarize it better. That is, you should list which votes were counted and which were not, and the reasons for each. I notice another user posted a similar question on your talk page, that could have been avoided had you provided sufficient info initially.

StuRat 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

transparent society

On Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/November_2005#Big_Brother_World, someone claiming to be StuRat mentioned

...we shouldn't give out the addresses of witnesses to Mafia hits, along with the times they will be alone and the house will be unguarded. I think most info should be shared freely, but some should be kept secret.

I agree. However, reading the book The Transparent Society has almost convinced me the the continued loss of privacy is inevitable, no matter how much I wish otherwise. I'm fascinated by the counter-intuitive idea that, when some unscrupulous person exploits some piece of data, sometimes the problem can be solved by making more information public. For example, perhaps I wouldn't mind these unpleasant people knowing when I will be home alone, if I can be assured that the police and other friendly, well-armed individuals also know exactly when those unpleasant people will be dropping by to visit me.

p.s.: good work on trying to make technical articles readable by mere mortals. --DavidCary 23:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Splitting a conversation across two talk pages can be confusing. Mind if I move the whole conversation to http://futures.wiki.taoriver.net/moin.fcg/SensorsEverywhere ? (Or is there a more appropriate talk page elsewhere?) --DavidCary 02:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't watch a page there, can I ? I prefer leaving it here, as long as you are watching this page. StuRat 02:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

groan

If there were a barnstar for worst joke of the day, you would have just earned it. alteripse 14:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. StuRat 14:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AoJatRD

Heyas. Cernen here, creator of offensive reference desk templates. I was thinking, I've noticed that you're one of several people among the "reference desk pseudo-staff" who seem to consider stupidity at the reference desk...abhorrent? I don't know if perhaps you'd be interested in joining the Association of Jerks at the Reference Desk or not, but if you would, that'd be kind of nifty, I suppose? I'm not calling you a jerk...I just don't have the creativitiy skills to come up with something cooler...aaanyways, the association has a page at Meta and if you want to sign up that's fine...not sure if you believe in associations or what not, but...aaaanyway...there you go? AoJatRD Cernen Xanthine Katrena 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict on science page

We just had an odd edit conflict on the energy conservation question. I moved some comments around for clarity, and replied to one of yours, at the same time you added another. You should go look and fix the indentation on your latest comment. -- SCZenz 07:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yea, please don't move my comments around like that. My "correct" was meant to go with what you said, but by moving it you made it look like I was agreeing with a comment by user:deeptrivia, which I most definitely was not. I moved my comment, your reply, and my reply to your replay, back to the original location. StuRat 08:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Truce time

Hi StuRat. Your observation about me on the Humanities ref desk, that I "engage in overwhelmingly negative criticism, with very little positive to say to anyone", stung. But I thought about it and it's probably a fair comment on my recent activity, so I'm going it leave it there and let it go through to the keeper. But in response may I please make a few observations of my own, privately.

In order to compile the list of my "victims", you either (a) have an extremely good memory for detail, (b) have been keeping tabs on me progressively, or (c) went to the bother of researching my recent posts. Your comment, whatever truth it may have contained, was not about the content of any one of my posts, but a comment about me personally and the way I seem to have been operating lately. This was a personal attack, which is contrary to WP policy. You are guilty of the very thing you have publicly accused me of. OK, my record is not perfect either. I was guilty of making a personal attack on BluePlatypus, once, and I have made amends to him on that. I don't believe the finger can fairly be pointed at me about any of my other contributions. I strive always to comment on content, never to personalize it. I've never made a personal attack on you, for example - but the reverse is no longer true. You might want to think about that.

Well, if accusing one of making personal attacks is a personal attack, then you are now guilty of a "personal attack" against me as well. I think this points out the absurdity of such an argument. StuRat 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you've misunderstood me. I never said that you had accused me of making personal attacks on anyone. (Apart from the one exception I have acknowledged, I never have made personal attacks.) Your comments about me were about engaging in overwhelmingly negative criticism. I have accepted that criticism as a true statement. I have also said that those comments amount to a personal attack. I am entitled to point that out, and not to have that dismissed with word play. I wasn't making a big thing about it, just cautioning you not to cross the line. That's why I said "you might want to think about that". I wasn't denying the veracity of your statement per se. But making true statements, and making acceptable statements, are not always the same thing. You're an intelligent guy, and you can make that distinction. JackofOz 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to think about correcting the spelling of others. You do this a lot, but your own is far from perfect. Sure, sometimes you do it with a bit of humor, but the underlying message (you know better) is there. Maybe in many cases you do know better, but those who live by the sword must be prepared to die by the sword. It is often quite amusing to see a correction of another's spelling followed quickly by one of your own blunders. Quite irritating too - which is a far serious offense. I think I've only corrected you once so far (Tory not Torie) - but there have been a lot I've stayed quiet about.

My general policy is to only correct spelling when:

• The other person repeatedly misspells the same word the same way, indicating it's not just a typo. On the other hand, something like "alos" instead of "also" is obviously just a typo and they don't benefit from having that pointed out to them.

• It's a term they need to be able to spell correctly to do a Wikipedia search or a general search. "Tory" falls into this category, so you'll note I didn't criticize your correction of my spelling there.

• Their misspellings are so thick as to make the question unreadable. In these cases there is also usually a lack of sentences, capitalization, etc., and others have typically commented on their inability to read the question. In such cases I may do a total rewrite of the question. This question on Bird Flu being transported by winds is a good example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/January_2006#Title_bird_flu_h5n1_wing_and_a_feather

StuRat 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. JackofOz 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You might find this hard to believe going on recent activity, but I hate conflict, I hate confrontation, and I hate getting into this sort of thing. It is just so not the real me. But I have a huge regard for WP, and I won't just sit by and see statements made that are plain wrong, or gratuitously offensive, without comment. Our readers and ref desk enquirers deserve better than that. My central aim is to improve the standards of what we put out there. I'm not here to make friends (but by the same token I'm not here to make enemies, either).

I agree that serious errors should be corrected but not minor ones that really don't relate to the question at hand. You often correct people who don't seem to have made any error at all, which is my opinion of this, for example:

"Kainaw, you said "the three dimensions we can can touch may not be the only dimensions we exist in" and called this a "fact". This doesn't sound right to me. If it were a fact, there would be no doubt about it; but you're only saying it may be true, which leaves a lot of room for doubt. JackofOz 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)"

I see no problem with saying something "may be a fact", meaning it's possible, but not certain.

He didn't say that "<something> may be a fact". He referred to "the fact that <something> may be true", which is a very different thing. Something that has been proposed as a possibility is the very antithesis of a fact. I was merely querying what Kainaw meant, because he/she seemed to be saying 2 contradictory things. JackofOz 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's better to say "I disagree" rather than "you're wrong". I try to use the less aggressive approach except for when someone gets aggressive with me or makes a really stupid comment, like that the Holocaust never happened.

Don't believe I've ever said "you're wrong". JackofOz 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some people get a bit of a shock with my very head-on comments, and react in an ego-based knee-jerk way. If they read what I actually write, and give it 10 seconds thought before reacting, it might go a little easier for everyone. A good case in point was the debate about astrology. How many times did I have to reiterate my statement that I remain open-minded about whether astrology is worthy of serious consideration - I think 4 times from memory. People, yourself included, quoted those words back at me as "I believe in astrology" or "I advocate astrology" or similar, and then criticised me for those made-up words. How bizarre was that!! Is it any wonder that debate went on for as long as it did? How much frustration can one person endure!

There I think many, myself included, don't believe astrology is worthy of serious consideration (for the reasons I listed there) so lump people who firmly believe in it and those who think their might be something to it all together as having a dangerous, superstitious, antiscientific world-view. StuRat 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're arguing the merits or otherwise of astrology. That had nothing to do with what I said above (and I refuse to be drawn on that anymore). I was talking about people commenting on what I actually write, not what they think I mean and quoting back at me those interpretations that come from their own heads as if they were my actual words. JackofOz 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I attribute many of the personal issues that arise between WP users to the absence of non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, voice tones, and general body language. Many (by no means all) of my seemingly serious posts contain an element of humorous intent but, as I've discovered the hard way here and elsewhere, humor does not always translate well in chat rooms because humor depends for its success on the very factors that are inherently missing here, the non-verbals. I'm sure you know that non-verbals are estimated to contribute a huge proportion (some say as high as 90%) of the meaning of a communication. My style of humor is very individual - I can make a shocking statement, but I redeem myself by having a twinkle in my eye. People take their time warming to me out there in the real world too, but when they get used to me, they realise how utterly lovable and adorable I am. (Now, how to translate that twinkle into words ... ?)

Agreed. Perhaps the same is true for me. My comment that "before Wikipedia, I imagined you found others to molest" was meant as a joke, but you seemed to take offense. StuRat 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I almost did, till I saw the smiley. Which I acknowledged. The thin ice comment was humour (didn't come through). JackofOz 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck, pal, and no hard feelings. Let's move on. JackofOz 02:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If by moving on you mean attempting to be less negative in our posts, then I agree, let's both do that. StuRat 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed JackofOz 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

In the Wikipedia Reference Desk for Humanities, your comment resembles one made by the late Bertrand Russell: "Of the great religions of history I prefer Buddhism, especially in it's earliest forms, because it has had the smallest element of persecution." If you do indeed choose this path, I'd recommed reading The Dhammapada. I was raised Christian and delved deeply into Islam, Christianity and Atheism but found Buddhism closest to Truth. What ever path you choose, may you be well, comfortable, peaceful and happy. Metta (loving-kindness)! Usedbook 05:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I prefer to avoid all organized religions at this time, but I will keep that in mind, StuRat 05:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

from science reference desk

In my opinion, I've effectively already lost my parent's trust and respect. I am aware of the potential consequences. I can access the internet from some other sources, but it would be a great deal more convenient to use it on my own computer. I have an very high-end computer with several games that I'd like to be able to play online. As for the "standard advice" bit, in general I'd agree with you, however since I'm 18 I don't consider it to be applicable to me. On paper, you're right. In reality, it doesn't work out so cleanly. I do appreciate your concern, though. Flea110 23:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're 18, I agree that they're being a bit overprotective. However, I really think regaining their trust is far more important in the long run than playing games online, and this is not the way to do it. Now, you might be thinking you don't need their trust because you will be leaving home soon. However, the chances that you will need them at some point later in life is quite high, like to loan you some money, which they may not do if they don't trust you. StuRat 23:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. Long term 'is' more important than short term. Hard as it may be, I won't go through with it anymore. Thanks for your help. Flea110 04:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, I'm sure you've made the right decision. StuRat 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Morning rant

I wholeheartedly agree with your morning rant. Specifically, I also prefer dials. More generally, I'm happy that you spend time thinking about these questions, seeing that you're a computer programmer - because there's still lots to be done. I love Alan Cooper's works, which I highly recommend unless you know them already. "The inmates" is more of a rant and a really quick read, and "About Face" more of a text book.

I am neither in favor of old technology or new, but feel each has a place and should be evaluated solely on it's merits. The attitudes that "anything old is better" and "anything new is better" seem quite counterproductive to me. An example of something valued because it's old which, in my opinion, should have no place in modern society, is silverware. Silver readily oxidizes, becoming discolored and giving food a distasteful flavor, is soft enough to bend when scooping ice cream, conducts heat so well that you can burn your hand on a spoon in a hot bowl of soup, isn't dishwasher safe, and is, of course, rather expensive. Stainless-steelware is better is almost every respect. StuRat 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure. But what brought this on? — Sebastian (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that the whole point of a rant ? It just comes seemingly out of nowhere. StuRat 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I shouldn't have titled this "Morning rant", but "User interface or Interaction design". — Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but then I wouldn't have had any excuse to sneak in a "bonus rant", now would I ? StuRat 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

;-)) — Sebastian (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you could make your talk page a bit more user friendly if you added something like {{usercomment}} at the top, and if you inserted a headline for the greeting. (No idea why most greeters don't do that already, as they do with any other message on a user page.) — Sebastian (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions. StuRat 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

education

"Hope that I helped bring a bit of dark sarcasm into your world."

• That was brilliant. :-) --Steve Summit (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [Now leave those kids alone.]

• Thanks ! StuRat 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Our First single..!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hi.... i mentioned on my user page that i wanted to be in a band....well........i have formed a band and we just recorded our first single....... we are 3 people in our band.... I play bass.... Danish sings and plays the rythm guitar.....SriChu plays the lead guitar.....and we are looking for a drummer.... this single was made without the drums and only bass , acoustic and a lead guitars...

anyways heres the link for our single.... Please download it if you can and rate it....

[[2]]

And you want more details about the band or the lyrics of the song please dont hesistate to ask me.... and if you like please feel free to distribute the song over the internet....

thanks a lot....

Jayant, 17 Years, India|^(Talk) 04:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. by the way..we still haven't named our band yet... so any suggestions would be welcome....

Reference Desk

The database is having some problems, I reverted your edit, it may not work right now, but it should later. The devs are working on it. --18:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

64.12.117.5 unblocked

...as you requested. I don't see it in the block log: was it collateral damage from an AOL vandal autoblock? If so, these happen all the time--they expire, I believe, in 24 hours, and I wish we had a software mechanism to avoid this problem (e.g. allow all logged-in users in good standing to be unaffected by an IP block). Antandrus (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is needed. Of course, to do that, maintaining a list of users in good standing would be required. StuRat 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I, DirkvdM (and world politics in general)

This is a question about me. Or rather what you think of me. Or rather what I think you might think of me. :) At the ref desk you made a remark about my 'rabid anti-Americanism'. I tasted some irritation there. It is sometimes hard to assess people's feelings in writing (something emoticons can barely remedy). This applies both to your remark and my postings. I can't keep on adding smileys, but most of what I say is meant with a smile. I just like an intellectual head-to-head and I was under the impression the same goes for you. So if you are irritated by some things I write, please tell me.

And while I'm on the subject of me, do you in general consider my input at the ref desks useful or do I get in the way of serious editors? You may treat me the way I treat others and be completely and totally blunt (or sharp, which ironically comes down to the same thing). Main thing is you mean it. DirkvdM 09:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do find you, and the apparently huge number of people who think like you (that the "US is an evil empire intent on the murder of billions of people") to be quite dangerous. An individual with that opinion isn't too dangerous, but if all of Europe is convinced of that and NATO dissolves as a result, it could have huge repercussions. I particularly object to how you don't state it as your opinion, but it's apparently an assumption on which all your questions are based.

To get other nations to behave, at least one country is needed to occasionally "wield a stick". Europe can dangle a carrot at Iraq or Iran or North Korea to try to get them not to develop nuclear weapons (and then use them against their neighbors) but without the threat of a military deterrent (and occasional use of that deterrent), they would likely all have gone ahead and invaded their neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction, killed millions of people, etc. Those in Europe who think everyone on Earth is peaceful except those "bloodthirsty Americans" are seriously deluding themselves, and this delusion will have consequences.

One of the immediate areas of concern is that Europeans may continue to fund the Palestinian Authority, despite the fact that it's now run by Hamas, an organization that doesn't just have a history of terrorism, but a current policy aimed at the destruction of Israel, suicide bombers targeting civilians, etc. If Europe undermines the US effort to get Hamas to either reject terrorism or leave office, this will have long lasting consequences both in Palestine and against terrorism in general. This is an example of how this driving a wedge between the US and Europe is dangerous. StuRat 22:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have some doubts about the Iraq war myself, but that doesn't mean Europe should consider the US evil and have nothing to do with it and oppose all it's policies in the future. StuRat 22:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to overgeneralise my generalisations. :) But I suppose I detect a smiley in the 'billions of people' thingy. I do see a great danger in the US, but that doesn't mean I think it is an 'evil empire'. Actually, I wouldn't call any country that. For example Germany in WWII. But they did have some bad leaders (which they chose themselves). Not that I mean I regard the US the way I do Nazi Germany. That comparison would be way out of proportion (in the scale of things) and, more importantly, I believe the US have a good deal of good intentions with the world. However, personal (national) interrests always get in the way. And that is why I think the UN is the only valid organisation to decide where intervention is called for. I know they're a bit clumsy at it, but that is just a result of it being a relatively recent experiment. And a major country not backing it is a serious threat to world peace. My latest question about US politics and world peace (which I suppose you are referring to) was designed not as an attack at the US but as an attempt to understand how things could be changed for the better in a peaceful way. It turns out I had some misconceptions about how US politics work. But that is actually scarier. At first I thought the bellicose attitude of the US was a result of its political system. If that is not the case then I must conclude that the people of the US have a bellicose nature. But that doesn't coincide with my experience with people from the US, so I'm still trying to figure this out.

About one of the specific things you mention, the 'funding' of Palestine is just another form of aid, like so many third world countries receive. At least, that makes sense (I don't really know about it and have never made a statement about it, so this was not a good example to bring up I suppose). The aggressive language of Hamas may very well be just muscle-flexing, sort of like Bush saying "who is not with us is against us". That sounded like a declaration of war on the rest of the world (well, most of it anyway). But he didn't act upon it. It remains to be seen what Palestine does. If it actually starts attacks on Israel that go beyond repercussions for what is done to them (tricky one, that) then EU suport may very well end, like what the Netherlands did to Indonesia after it attacked East Timor (to which Indonesia said "screw you, we no longer want any of your aid", but that's a different matter).

I agree that a wedge between the US and Europe would indeed be potentially dangerous, but that doesn't mean one side should yield to the other (actually, part of Europe has sided with the US, although one of them got thrown out of government as a result). Once again, I think the UN is the ultimate answer. Just like in the EU, the different countries should be able to cooperate whilst keeping their own views and culture. Like in a democracy an individual must yield to the majority view, but still be allowed to think and vote whichever way they want. All we need for that on a world scale is, well, the UN. What else could constitute a world government? Ironic bit: the US were intrumental in bringing the the UN about. I wish you guys knew it when you do something good. :)

Hmm, this reasoning sounds so good I wish I wrote it in a more public place like the ref desk. :) DirkvdM 10:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The UN's record of preventing genocide and aggression is pathetic. The only case I can think of where the UN actually committed enough troops to make a difference was in the Korean War, and there only with massive US troops. This isn't just because it's new, but because all of the world's nations are never going to agree on much of anything. NATO, on the other hand, could agree and take actions, such as it did in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan (although again, with US leadership required to get anything done). StuRat 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your statement:

"At first I thought the bellicose attitude of the US was a result of its political system. If that is not the case then I must conclude that the people of the US have a bellicose nature. But that doesn't coincide with my experience with people from the US, so I'm still trying to figure this out."

Again you are making a hidden assumption, that the US has a bellicose attitude. This is only the perception of the US from pacifist nations which would rather do nothing (or perhaps something pathetic and ineffective) rather than do what it actually takes to stop genocide, repel an invader, etc. This explains the apparent paradox, how "a bellicose government can be freely elected by a non-bellicose population" ... your initial assumption that the US has a bellicose government is wrong. StuRat 10:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

First you proudly recount all the times the US 'saved the day' and then you go on to say the US aren't all that bellicose. Make up your mind. :)

I wanted to refer to the amount of 'wars' the US have waged since WWII, but what is a war? Even in the case of Iraq, there is some controversy over whether that should be called a war. And most interventions are undercover, so the term 'bellicose' might not be the right one in that respect. To take a favourite example of mine, Cuba. The US have tried to invade the country, but that wasn't done by official US troops. In stead a paramilitary group was 'sponsored' and otherwise supported by the US. In other words, the US hired mercenaries. Not officially war maybe, but same dif to me. And in the Cuban missile crisis the US attacked USSR submarines, almost causing a political game to escalate into war. It's just because the USSR was wise enough to back off and accept loss of face that WWIII was prevented. And the way it was done was hushed up. And one regularly finds out about US actions that were hushed up. So what do we not hear about? A recent example are the torturings and CIA flights in Europe. That does not constitute war (then again, it goes beyond what the Geneva convention considers 'fair' warfare and can therefore be considered worse than war) but again, same dif. The term 'bellicose' does not only refer to war but more genrally to a willingness to fight, so I think it is appropriate (and if it isn't I should come up with a different word, but that does not affect the principle).

About the US doing the job the UN should be doing (I suppose that's what you mean in a nutshell). In any type of justice there should be reciprocity. This means that if you think the most powerful nation of the world is to police the world, then you should accept that also if it were not your own country. Let's suppose the US lost its position (economical crisis, yellowstone erupting, whatever - a series of climatic disasters would be poetic justice) and that China would decide to take on that role. How would you feel about that? Would you accept Chinese dominance as much as you now accept US dominance? Is the UN as an alternative beginning to sound more attractive? If their method doens't work now, shouldn't we work towards letting them try until they figure out how to play this new game? For this, the US should not get in their way. If the UN were to go into Iraq now, would people accept them as if nothing happened before their arrival? I doubt it. DirkvdM 08:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have added a new assumption that "all wars are unjust" to your set. Many of the wars the US participated in were completely justified, such as WW2, Korea, the First Gulf War, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. The UN actions in Iraq are pretty typical, they left their compound poorly defended, it was blown up by a truck bomb, then they left. I see no reason to think they would be any more effective there now than they were before or in Rwanda. Regarding your Cuba statements, those weren't paid mercenaries but members of Castro's opposition in exile, living in Miami. They wanted to overthrow Castro and establish a government in Cuba more to their liking. Also note that the Cuban missile crisis started when the US stationed nukes in Western Europe to deter a Soviet invasion (they had a huge conventional forces advantage, so only nukes could deter them). Many Americans feel that Western Europe shows "insufficient gratitude" to the US for saving them from the Nazis, rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan, and defending Europe from invasion for 40 years. I think we were stupid to just do all that for free, but should have made all that assistance "loans", and we should demand to be repaid when those countries we have helped betray us. StuRat 11:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's mostly the USSR that beat the nazis. It is generally believed that the US 'saved the day'; they were then and are still often seen as the liberator. US intervention of course made a big difference, but it's the Eastern Front that did the Germans in. As an illustration, almost half the casualties of WWII were Russians. So by your reasoning we should have paid our gratitude to the USSR. Financially. Again, do you still think your reasoning holds when it works out the other way around? And the idea that the US 'came to the rescue' * is also very popular, but the US only fully entered the war when (just like with the USSR) it was attacked by both Germany and Japan and they declared war, after which it was forced to let go of its Monroe Doctrine. By the way, I now see that World War II Casualties has the casualties per population added, which is rather illustrative of the war effort, although for that the holocuast deaths should not be included and it should focus on the military deaths, but that would show a similar picture (I now wonder how the US lost so may civilians, though).

*Chicken run: "Bloody Americans, too late for every war!" :)

But you bring up an interresting point with the repayments vs Marshall Plan. After WWI Germany had to pay hefty retributions, which was a major factor leading to WWII. After the opposite was done after WWII, it had the opposite effect and 'peace broke out'. Europe seems to have leaned that lesson and in the EU large sums were pumped from the rich to the poor countries and look at what happened to especially Ireland (and how fast it worked). That seems to be the way to go. So, in stead of a stick, Europe now uses a carrot, tempting countries (such as in the Middle East) to 'be good' so they will get benefits from free trade with the EU (the US seem to be trying the same in America, but I don't know much about that). So far this strategy of giving generally hasn't helped third world countries very much. Maybe it shouldn't be just giving but more of the free trade thing. Or maybe more should be given, more like 10% of the GDP in stead of 1%, as I suggested in a recent ref desk thread. Or maybe the difference is just too great in this case. Alas I don't know, but I am convinced the carrot is better than the stick.

Whether all wars are unjust I don't know, but what makes a huge difference is who starts it. The war against Germany was a reaction to German aggression and therefore justifiable. Invading another country when that country hasn't shown any external aggression (Iraq now) is not justifiable unless there is a consensus among the peoples of the world (ie the UN). Doing the same when that country has attacked a third country (Iraq vs Kuwait) is a bit trickier if done by one country (or group of countries like NATO), but justifiable as long as there is no opposing strong country supporting the other side because that would just wreck the country (undercover wars between the USSR and US - alas all I know about those is just the hype, though). And let's not forget, attacking a country that tries to oust an invader (Vietnam) is just plain wrong.

Finally, about the invasion of Cuba, you describe it, I name it. I don't see a difference. DirkvdM 08:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I do give the Soviet Union credit for saving Eastern Europe, but think the US deserves the credit for Western Europe. (Any gratitude Eastern Europe owed the Soviet Union has been more than repaid by 40 years of oocupation and oppression.) Specifically, the US Cash and Carry program and following Lend-Lease program provided England with the war materiel needed to hold out against Germany. Had the US not given that level of assistance, England would have collapsed and Germany could have focused all it's military on defeating the Soviet Union. Later on, the US invaded Italy and France and drove the Germans back (with some help from other Allies). Also, equating the level of "help" with the number of casualties is not correct. The Chinese suffered massive casualties fighting the Japanese but had little effect, while the US suffered far fewer casualties but were still responsible for Japan's defeat. And you don't seem to have addressed my basic complaint about the UN, that such a body made up of countries with such opposing goals could never provide an effective world policing body. StuRat 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the "carrot vs stick" argument, using both is far more effective than using either by itself. Diplomacy alone is rather ineffective, as Neville Chamberlain found out when dealing with the Nazis. Similarly, I doubt if diplomacy alone will work to keep Iran from building a nuclear arsenal, without at least the credible threat of force on the other side. StuRat 21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

(the following is written badly, too many re-edtis of my own writing, sorry)

What if the US hadn't participated. Would the Germans have been beaten? Probably, at the decisive eastern front. What if the USSR hadn't participated? I think we'd be speaking German here now. The USSR lost over twenty times more military lives than the US. That may have partly been inefficiency (I don't know, really), but that alone cannot explain such a difference. Also, the Chinese army was probably much less experienced than the Russian army (out on a limb here). The US help before they entered the war must have made a big difference, though it can't be said with certainty that Britain would have been conquered. Like Russia, it has proven hard to conquer in the past. By the way, if the US had not entered the war we might be speaking Russian here now, but that is another not so certain speculation, we've been over before. What objective measure could we use to determine who made the biggest war effort to determine who has to pay whom? The military death toll is the best one one can think of and in that case the US would have had to pay the USSR.

But one important point is that all these countries were allies, working towards a common goal. The US entered the war to defeat their enemy, who had attacked them, not just out of the kindness of their hearts to help poor Europe. Nothing wrong with that, but don't make it into something it wasn't.

Another thing is that Germany was conquering other countries big time. This was no internal affair. The US, however, meddle a lot in the internal affairs of other countries, often with some form of force (rather like nazi Germany? Oops...), which is my main gripe. But an interresting question would be if, in the 1930's, the surrounding countries, who must have seen it coming (although hindsight is always too easy) should have intervened before Germany attacked. What if they would have formed an alliance (a little UN) and invaded Germany? (The US type of solution would have been just France invading Germany. What would that have led to?) Would that have been justifiable? The problem is one can never know for sure the invaded country would have attacked themselves. You cannot convict someone for a crime they haven't committed yet. That's a major pain, but no less true for it. I'd say, more than just a carrot, economic help is a better solution (spend money on that in stead of the military?). Actually, that's what the EU is doing now, to prevent internal wars. The UN is truying something similar on a worldwide scale. Maybe that is too much too soon, but I'd say give them a chance. It's an entirely new ballgame and they have yet to invent the rules. We know the old ways and we know they stink. Change doesn't come easy, but that's no reason not to try it. DirkvdM 08:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you take the time to fix the bad edits ? I say the best way to measure how effective a country's military contribution was is to measure the amount of territory they captured. The higher number of Russian deaths is due to lack of coordination among their generals, executing those who retreated (even from hopeless positions), fighting on home territory, lack of modern weapons (early on), and their leaders not much caring how high the casualties were. Had the USSR surrendered to Hitler, I would expect England and all of Europe would have been conquered by Germany, but the US would then have used nuclear weapons to win, as it did in Japan. I still say the Russians would have lost in a one-front war against Germany. They barely hung on as is, with the US supporting England to keep it a two-front war (three-front, if you count Africa).

By "not meddling in internal affairs" do you mean we should just ignore genocide like in Rwanda and against the Kurds in Iraq ? Or perhaps put some useless economic sanction on them which is as good as ignoring it ? You said the US-type solution would have been just France invading, while the US invaded Iraq with the help of England, Spain, Poland and others. If France had the help of England, Spain, Poland and others and invaded Germany when they first started breaking the arms limitations they agreed to in the Treaty of Versailles, World War II could definitely have been avoided. By waiting until Germany was on the attack, they assured that they would not be able to stop it without help from the US and USSR.

How is the UN ever going to be a functional deterrent to invasions and genocide when it is composed of enemies with diametrically opposite goals ? It isn't. All the UN is good for is talk, not action. No amount of time will change this basic problem.

If you don't like the US handling of issues like Iraq, then Europe should do it's part. They should take the lead in ending conflicts in Europe (former Yugoslavia), Africa (Rwanda, Somalia, etc.), and the Middle East (Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Iran). The US can then restrict itself to conflicts in the Americas. Japan and Australia can handle the far East. The only country that has seemed to do it's part so far is Australia, which stopped the killing in East Timor. The rest of you seem content to do nothing and complain about anyone who tries to help. StuRat 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that if a country attacks you that sort of gives you carte blanche; whatever you do to them they had coming (well, almost). If a country attacks a third country unprovoked, that still makes them the 'bad guys' and pretty much the same applies (although the problem of two superpowers fighting it out over the backs of a small third country could change this - tricky). If a country has internal problems (or you perceive it as such) there is no objective way to determine what is right. Who is to decide that about another culture? Would you think the US deserves being invaded because it has a system of death penalties? Does unjustly (who is to decide that?) killing people give any other nation an excuse to invade? Or what about Guantanamo Bay? What would be the right reaction to that? Who is to decide that? Who can claim to know what is just? There is no objective way to determine what is right. The only reasonable alternative is a form of world democracy and the only thing we have that comes close to that is the UN. In the case of Germany after WWII it may have worked because that is a western country and the changes that were forced upon the country were understandable to the people. But if you meddle in the affairs of a country with a different culture you're bound to make faux pas which will alienate people to what ever you want to do. A mixed force with different cultures might be a solution. Of course that will be slower (that is inherent to democracy), but any changes will be more likely to be acceptable to the people and therefore be more enduring.

Having said that, a downright genocide (but who decides what constitutes that?) is wrong in any culture. But that still leaves the question how it is to be dealt with. And the only reasonable answer to that is something like the UN. Maybe the way that body functions should be changed. And that has to be done internally, so turning your back on it is very counterproductive, especially if you have the biggest military (and financial) force.

I've got loads of ideas flying around in my head, but this time I don't want to make a mess like I did in my last posting. :) We've both got strong points and just keep on repeating them, which doesn't lead to much. Main thing is that there is no easy solution here, but that is also at the core of my reasoning. You basically say anything like the UN will never work, so countries should do as they please (an intermediate organisation like NATO is just the same but bigger because it's still the dominance of one culture). At the moment that means US dominance. Which may still last as long as we live. But it will end one day and another country (or terrorist organisation) may then decide to invade the US. Will they be in the right just because they are the strongest? Going for the right of the strongest is too easy when you are the strongest. DirkvdM 09:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe what you are talking about is moral relativism. That is, you believe any behavior is OK as long as it's acceptable in that society and that therefore only people in that culture are eligible to judge that nation. This can be used to justify totalitarianism, genocide, etc., by just saying "who are we to judge others ?". I agree that some things should be left to each society to decide, such as what type of clothing is acceptable, but think that moral relativism must be rejected when facing obvious evil like genocide. A current example of the uselessness of the UN is the Darfur region of Sudan. The Chinese have business interests in Sudan and a seat on the Security Council, and made it clear they will veto any attempt to put pressure on Sudan to end the genocide there, so the UN does nothing. Many Muslim nations would also object to any attempt to apply pressure to Sudan to stop the genocide. The only "structural changes" to the UN that would make it effective would be to evict China, the Muslim nations, and other troublemakers, in which case we would pretty much have NATO. StuRat 10:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As for your statement about the nation building in post WW2 Germany only being a success due to their Western outlook, what about Japan ? They seemed to have many features in common with Iraq, such as the willingness to massacre enemy civilians and commit suicide in an attack on an enemy. One big difference is that Japan was, and is, cohesive, and all agreed to surrender when Hirohito told them to do so. Iraq doesn't seem like a nation at all to me, but 3 nations (Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiitistan ?) only held together by force. StuRat 10:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And no, being the strongest doesn't make you right, but it is possible to be the strongest and be right. If some evil country becomes the sole superpower in the future, then we're all in trouble. However, they aren't going to say "well, since the US abandoned all international obligations and became isolationist at the request of DirkvdM back in 2006, I guess we should do the same and abandon our plan for global conquest and genocide". If bin Laden ruled the world, he would kill everyone who disagrees with him, no matter how the rest of the world had behaved in the past. StuRat 10:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In the news today, it appears that Europe is going to go ahead and give $200 million to the Palestinian Authority, after the Hamas victory. They have decided to fund an organization that is publicly committed to the violent destruction of Israel. This is moral extremism in action: "Well, blowing up busloads of civilians is just there way, who are we to judge ? Need more money for bombs ? Here you are !" StuRat 10:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You could also say that Israel is an evil nation because it knocked the Palestinians off their land. And indeed many do. I don't know the details, but I have understood that the money is given to the Palestinians, as aid, just as it is given to so many peoples. The success of Hamas was a reason to reconsider that, hence the decision. One reason is that if you stop the aid you effectively pull your hands off the whole affair. An important issue, at least in the discussion in the Netherlands, was that no money should go to Hamas. Comparable to the discussion concerning sending troops to Afghanistan. The major deciding party in this was PvdA and their decision pivoted around what was to be done with prisoners. These should not fall into the hands of the US, because that might lead to them being tortured. They thought they got this guarantee, but are now still criticised by some parties because it is a fake guarantee; prisoners might get handed over to the Afghan authorities, who then in turn might hand them over to the US troops. The PvdA reasoning was 'well, then it's out of our hands', but of course that is lame. The reason I bring this up is that the US is considered an evil nation by more and more people here in Europe. Including my conservative mother and not-quite-left-wing sister. Does Europe have an obligation to invade the US to 'put things right'? Considering what I said above one might say yes, because the US do a lot of invading of other countries without being provoked. But the US is to powerful (and a major trading partner), so yes, we're chicken. Count your blessings. :) DirkvdM 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the above, I don't mean to say that the US should be invaded by the EU (far from it, but you should understand that if you've understood a bit of what I've been saying). What I mean is what I've tried to say in differnet ways all the time. The keyword is reciprocity. If the roles were reversed and some other nation would consider it a good idea to invade the US, you'd have no reason to complain. Don't do unto others what you are not willing to suffer yourself if your reasoning backfires.

This just in. I'm watching the film Day one, in which the wife of Oppenheimer says she worked for the Communist Party because in the thirties Communism seemed like the only answer to Fascism because Democracy wasn't doing a thing about the Spanish civil war. Fill in 'rogue states' (or whatever) for Fascism, the UN for Democracy and the US for Communism and you'd be Oppenheimer's wife. :) DirkvdM 16:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about Palestine again, what I have understood is that the EU decided to debate whether the financial support should be continued after the Hamas victory and then decided to do so only insofar as that could be done before Hamas is installed, thus preventing them getting any of the money. So quite the opposite story of what you seem to have heard (we each get the brainwash of our own culture :) ). And about the massacre in Rwanda, no intervention could have stopped that, especially a foreign one. This was not a limited number of people such as a regular army or a few 'terrorists', this involved the entire population, with neighbours killing each other with tools from the shed. The only thing that could stop that was somehow convincing people to stop and foreigners couldn't possibly have achieved that, especially by force. Only a cooperation of respected Hutu and Tutsi leaders could have stopped it. DirkvdM 08:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The indents were getting out of hand, so let's start over again. I strongly disagree with your assessment of the Rwanda situation. The cause was that the current government of Rwanda was actively encouraging the genocide via radio broadcasts in particular, and publishing lists of people to be killed. Even a small military force could have removed that government or at least provided a credible threat of removing them and thus get them to stop promoting the genocide. Your argument is about equivalent to saying that without Hitler there still would have been genocide of Jews, since thousands of people carried out the genocide. StuRat 17:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

More generally, if Europe wants to take the pacifist route, they should have prevented the tensions from building to the point where they erupted in genocide. Specifically, population pressure appears to have caused severe competition for limited resources which results in just such tensions. The preventative measure, then, would have been to give them free birth control and/or refuse to give aide to individuals until they were sterilized. However, Europe would refuse any such effort, calling it eugenics, would oppose any such effort by anyone else on the same grounds, and would call the US militaristic genocidal terrorists if we went in and took the Rwanda government out, at the cost of a few thousand lives, to prevent the deaths of a million. Thus, Europe essentially required the genocide to take place by their actions and inactions. StuRat 17:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Palestinian funding, the EU is deluding itself if it thinks money going to a Hamas controlled country won't contribute to terrorist funding. Hamas could simply take the money (or the goods it bought) or reallocate it preferentially to suicide bombers' families. Or, they can allow Europe to provide all the traditional roles of government funding while they use their own money, now freed up from such uses, to launch rockets, bomb buses and restaurants, etc. StuRat 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I was already wondering about the size of your screen. :)

The government in Rwanda may have lit the fuse, but once that has reached the keg of powder you cannot stop the explosion anymore. Or should I compare this to a rolling ball? Snowball perhaps? I don't know, maybe you're right, but it's speculation and you'd effectively have to bring down the government and doing that on speculation is a bit iffy. Having two so completely different peoples in one country and one being a minority that nonetheless acts superior and even starts insurrections in a situation that has been tense for decades (possibly centuries?) is one hell of a powderkeg. (One would almost say the Tutsis were asking for it, but of course one Tutsi can't be held responsible for what another does.) According to the Rwanda article, the French sent in troops but only worsened the situation. And don't forget the whole thing started precisely with the killing of the president, which doesn't suggest that bringing down the government would have helped. A problem is that it all happened so fast; it was over in 100 days. Any reaction would have had to be fast and an organisation like the UN might indeed be too slow for that. But is that inherent? Maybe they need to find another set of rules to deal with things like this. But they have to run into them to learn how to deal with them. Like I said before, the approach of the UN is so new it will take a long time for it work properly, if it ever will (probably not within our lifetimes), but it deserves a chance.

As for Europe nipping things in the bud, that's probably exactly where the problem lies. I don't really know about Rwanda, but most African countries (and colonial countries elsewhere) had illogical borders, splitting and combining peoples almost at random. Then they left all of a sudden, basically saying 'well, you deal with this mess now'. That said, the French didn't leave Vietnam and that led to one hell of a mess. Of course they should never have started the colonisation, but that's way beyond this discussion. But Rwanda is at the border between two very different cultures, so even without colonialism there would have been violence (such is human nature alas). Take Burundi, for example. Almost an identical twin, except that the Tutsi managed to stay in power there after colonisation. Still, hundreds of thousands have been killed there too. It was just an 'accident' waiting to happen.

You're effectively suggesting forced sterilisation? Go wash your mouth (fingers?) with soap. This was suggested by someone in India too (a portable radio for sterilisation) and that went down pretty bad internationally (and internally I believe). Very very iffy. I haven't a clue how to deal with the various problems in Africa. Almost anything has been tried (has it?) and I'm almost tempted to say that the very meddling itself is at the core of the problems (starting with colonisation). Maybe apply the prime directive? I really don't know and I mistrust anyone who claims to know 'the solution'.

About Palestine, what you say reminds me of South Africa. That country was sanctioned for its apartheid, but blacks in the country weren't too happy about that because it increased their poverty. And like I mentioned before, the Netherlands curtailed their 'aid' to Indonesia (which was by far the biggest because it was really repayment for the colonial period), but Indonesia just laughed, even refused all further aid and nothing changed. I'm at a loss here too. Again, if intervention doesn't help, maybe we should not interfere? I really don't know, but if all the traditional methods fail, maybe we should try something completely new. And the UN is the only alternative I can think of.

Ooh, and here's another reciprocity thingy (brace yourself again). If South Africa had to be economically punished for their apartheid, should the US have been treated in the same way then? DirkvdM 09:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as South Africa was only economically punished DURING apartheid, then yes, we should use a time machine and go back and economically punish the US Southern States, in the 1950s, when segregation was still legal. StuRat 09:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, by refusing any action which would defuse the situation, and giving the UN a century to "get it right" (which I still say will never happen unless we boot out most of the non-NATO countries), you are condemning millions of future genocide victims: "sorry, we're not ready to help you, too bad, that". I wouldn't call offering something in return for sterilization "forced sterilization"; they are still free to choose. StuRat 09:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The genocide did, in fact, end when the government of Rwanda was toppled by rebels, thus proving that this was exactly what was needed. The French troops were insufficient to the task, and did not have orders to take out the government in any case, since they are just as timid as most of Europe. Had there been an attack on the government, much like the US-led NATO attack on the Serbian government that stopped them from committing genocide, then the genocide could have been prevented earlier. A quick reaction force could certainly be deployed within 100 days, if only the political will existed in Europe to take action. StuRat 09:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you sincerely mean that the US (of course not just the southern states) should have suffered the same sanctions South Africa did then you're consistent and I'll have to bow to that (although it's a bit too easy bevause it's in the past :) ).

About the sterilisation thing, I said effectively because you make them an offer they can't refuse. I used to think like you do here, but reality causght up with me - it's too easy to reason about freedom of choice when you actually have that freedom where others don't.

I dont have any further reactions to the Rwanda thing right now, but hope I will find the time to look into that a bit more because it's an interresting topic in many respects (the clash of East and West African cultures being one - I once made a bit of a study of that).

About the UN, I just read that the UN wanted to replace the human rights commission with a human rights council without precisely the sort of nations you want out of the UN to make them more 'decisive' (or what's the word?). So the cange may come faster than we thought (even literally 'as we speak'). But this was stopped by Bolton because he wants different procedures to determine who is to be excluded. Now who's holding things back? Bolton was put in his post precisely to boycot the UN and he's doing a fine job it seems. Several people, including Carter, said that renegociations would cause chaos. But the designer of the plan, Jan Eliasson, said he doesn't want to isolate the US. I'm afraid precisely that might happen. Like I said before, the US have to be part of these efforts. But if they keep on boycotting them the rest of the world might decide to go ahead without the US. Which would mean that the US and the UN might at some point find themselves in opposing camps, which would potentially be extremely dangerous. The US have never faced an equal military force. If they do, what will happen? Thoughts of this scare me shitless. Maybe the UN will have to wait for a change of regime in the US. But maybe by then there will be some other problem somewhere else stopping 'positive actions' like this. Which is a variation of the arguments you are using. So in a way you're right, but I don't want to think so negatively. Maybe just the threat of the UN going on without the US will effect a change. I suppose the word 'iffy' aplies here too. DirkvdM 15:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, now we're accusing each other of beaurocratic indecisiveness. Can't we make up our minds about what we should not decide? (I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure ... :) .) DirkvdM 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Bolton is worthless, and should never have been appointed. I don't know how much you follow US politics, but he wasn't going to get the approval of Congress, so Bush did a rather suspect "temporary recess appointment" to bypass them. I suspect he will be gone soon, or at least at the end of Bush's term in 2009. Bush can't run again, and would lose in any event (both his victories were close, the first one he actually lost the popular vote). I suspect that the next President will be more reasonable. I, personally, support John McCain. While technically also a Republican, he is nothing like Bush. StuRat 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In any UN vs US conflict the US would win, precisely because the UN is so incompetent. The only actual war it ever managed to fight was Korea, and then, even with full US support, it could only manage a draw. Defeating the US alone would, say, require 100 times the military forces it has now. This said, such thoughts are just silliness, you should worry about real threats, like Islamic terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear bomb and deciding to retaliate against Europe for the Mohammed cartoons. StuRat 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Well, those fake protests don't really worry me. :) The governments that stage them are just playing a home game, just like the call of Bush to stop them was only directed to his voters at home (he had to put up this air of world leader and if his words would onluy aggravate matters then he couldn't care less). And if terorists get their hands on a nuclear weapon they're not going to waste it on Europe. After all, justifiable or not, it's the US that's getting people all over the world upset with its meddling in their local affairs. (By the way, is the US singular or plural? I keep on switching between the two.)

If the US and the UN would find themselves on opposite sides somewhere that would be a completely new challenge for both sides. Based on history, I'd say the US would stand its ground and the UN would try talks first and then decide it isn't worth the bother, so there won't really be an armed confrontation. But if this would happen too often that could change the UN the way you want it too, except for the 'wrong' reason. There's nothing like a common strong enemy to unite a divided people (or peoples in this case). DirkvdM 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Graph program?

Hello,

I see here [[3]] you mention having written a program to create graphs. Might I ask if you're willing to share a copy of said program or point me in the direction of an equivalent? Thanks.

TS1 04:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to share it, but it's a FORTRAN program and doesn't currently have any user interface. That is, you must edit the program to change the equations you are graphing, and other parameters of the graph. Since most people aren't going to be proficient at editing a FORTRAN program, this might be of little use to them. The main problem seems to be how to prompt the user for an equation like this:

Y = abs(X^2) - sin(1/X)

and then convert it into an assignment statement in the program. As near as I can figure, I would need to write such an equation to file, along with the rest of the program, recompile and link the program, then run it. This would require that each user have a FORTRAN compiler and linker. If you have any ideas of an easier way to do this, please let me know. If you really want me to, I can do it the hard way, and probably get it done in a few weeks. Please let me know. StuRat 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Computer program equation input

If I want users to enter an equation into a program I write, and then want the program to use the equation, I only seem to have two options, neither of which seem very good:

1) Parse the equation in the program, allowing for every possible combination of functions, like trig functions, absolute value, hyperbolic functions, log functions, etc. This seems like a lot of work to redo what the program could already do had the equation just been hardcoded in.

2) Write the entire program out to a file, including the equation supplied by the user, then recompile and relink the program, and run it. This requires that anyone running the program also have a compiler.

The language I am using is FORTRAN and the application is a graphing program, but this seems like a more general issue to me. An example would be, if the user enters Y = X^(pi^e) + abs(sin(X^3))/log(1/sqrt(X)), I would then graph that equation. Are there any languages where a user supplied equation can just be used directly by the program ? Does anyone have any other ideas for how to do this in FORTRAN ? StuRat 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay procedural programming! Not specific to FORTRAN but I learned a little about this in compiler theory (which I didn't enjoy too much), so you might want to check out a book on that. It's possible that someone has made a library that can recieve code as a parameter and parses it into instructions, but they probably did the exact same thing that you said in (1), though likely with a low-level language. High level langauges aren't very good at analysing their own code, which is why many of them have their own scripting languages (I assume FORTRAN doesn't). Does FORTRAN have Assembly commands?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but it can make system calls, so if assembly language commands are available at the O/S level they could be accessed via a system call. StuRat 08:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This would be relatively trivial in Matlab, but whether that's a real language or not is open to debate. moink 06:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't just be trivial, it wouldn't require any programming at all!  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just look for almost any interpreted language. These tend to show off by having a function like "eval" which takes a string in the same language and execute it. They may be slower than compiled code, but this sort of thing is cute. Believe me, writing an expression parser is not simple, especially if you've never studied formal grammars and parsing techniques. Actually executing the functions is the trivial part. Notinasnaid 09:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it looks like a lot of work to me. I was actually leaning towards option 2, which requires that the code be recompiled and linked after the user enters the equation to graph. StuRat 10:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can attest that it is a lot of work because I've written a parser and interpreter that does that; it's not that difficult (recursive descent parser), it just takes forever. You might consider C# which can compile code on the fly without the need for the user to have the SDK on the computer. enochlau (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on what enochlau said: yes, option 1 is straightforward, though a certain amount of work. But you don't have to do all the work yourself; there are libraries which can do it for you. The C FAQ list mentions a few, although they're pretty dated. And if you know what you're doing, an expression evaluatior really isn't that much work, after all; you can write a simple one in an hour or two. Here's a condensed, mildly obfuscated one I coughed out once: eval.c.

Back in about 1987 I was thinking about precisely the problem you describe -- I wanted the user of a graphing program to be able to enter expressions using FORTRAN-like syntax. I wrote an expression parser and evaluator which I'm still using for various things. Like so many personal projects, it's not quite packaged and documented well enough for others to use easily, but you might take a look at http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/src/#med . That package includes the expression evaluation library and a command-line tool to exercise it. I just entered the expression

 c1**(pi**e) + abs(sin(X**3))/log(1/sqrt(c1))

into that tool (where I substituted the FORTRAN ** for your ^, and c1 -- meaning "column 1" -- for X) and it worked fine. Your function blows up pretty fast:

X	Y
0	divide by 0
1	divide by 0
2	5.76607e+06
3	5.19687e+10
4	3.32476e+13
5	4.99203e+15

Finally, a few more words about your option 2. You don't need to write the entire program out to a file and recompile it; typically you just need to write and compile a stub function containing the user-entered expression, then use dynamic linking to call the just-compiled code from the main program. The C FAQ list talks about this, too. (You didn't say you're using C, but both of the links I mentioned contain information that might be useful no matter what language you're using. Oh: you did say you're using FORTRAN. Hmm. I don't know how much of this stuff even a modern FORTRAN compiler would let you do.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a fortunate coincidence ! That math editor function looks quite useful. A few questions:

• The documentation says "in some versions" repeatedly. Do you have any documentation on what the version you are offering specifically does ?

• Do you have a FORTRAN stub that calls the function ? This would be useful to overcome all those silly FORTRAN-C function compatibility issues.

• Is there any support for +/- ? For example, if I give it Y = +/-sqrt(4), I want to get both +2 and -2 as output.

Thanks a lot for your help ! StuRat 20:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Answering these on your talk page. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that most of these suggestions are good if you're only using the program yourself, maybe if only for a department of a few dozen users, but the concept of using eval statements or open ended compiling is a Really Bad Idea from an information security perspective, if the program is destined to become a software product or mission critical system in any sense. Best case is that an errant user could enter an equation that could crash or drag the processor to a halt, worst case is that you give a malicious hacker the keys to the kingdom (by letting them compile and run any code they want on your system). This of course depends highly on the systems environment you are in, but it is a word to the wise.

If you want to do this in any serious environment (where money or lives are on the line), you will want to know the appropriate compiler theory to parse the equation and build the code yourself, with appropriate boundary checks. KWH 19:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just for my own use. I saw many glaring deficiencies in most graphing programs that I wanted to fix:

• Can only graph an equation in Y = f(X) form. Mine handles Y = f(X), X = f(Y) and equations in neither form.

• Can only use constant X increments for point sampling. Mine allows constant X increments, constant Y increments, or both.

• Can't handle inequalities. Mine does.

• Can't handle Boolean operations on multiple equations. Mine can handle unions, intersections, subtractions, etc.

• Limited size output. Mine can create a graph any size up to the memory limit of the computer.

• Can't handle polar equations. Mine can, in R = f(theta), theta = f(R), and general forms.

• Limited grid lines. Mine can create up to 5 levels of rectangular or polar grid lines.

• Can't do 3D graphs. My program can.

• Can't do derivatives and integrals. Mine will do these using numerical methods, although I haven't written this code yet.

I've already created several graphs with this program that are used in Wikipedia [4], but must edit and recompile the program each time I change the formula. This is annoying. StuRat 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at free software that already does equation parsing. No need to write your own (although you may be the type who likes to DIY) PARI-GP computer algebra system, Euler, YACAS (Yet another computer algebra system) come to mind. Probably others. List of computer algebra systems , Category:Free mathematics software --GangofOne 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your questions on the reference desk about med:

• The documentation says "in some versions" repeatedly. Do you have any documentation on what the version you are offering specifically does ?

Those "in some versions" notes refer to features which require additional libraries to support, such as for date/time arithmetic and multiprecision arithmetic. It's a nuisance to download and link with the additional libraries, so if you don't need the fancier features, you can build the basic expression evaluation library without them.

• Do you have a FORTRAN stub that calls the function ? This would be useful to overcome all those silly FORTRAN-C function compatibility issues.

Sorry, no. (I haven't used FORTRAN in years, and I don't know what the compatibility issues are these days.)

• Is there any support for +/- ? For example, if I give it Y = +/-sqrt(4), I want to get both +2 and -2 as output.

Sorry, no again. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Too bad, though, especially about the lack of a FORTRAN stub, that would have been quite useful. StuRat 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I, DirkvdM (and world politics in general, continued)

Section was too long, so is continued here:

I believe the rule for group plurals is "when viewed as indivdual items, use a plural, when viewed collectively, use a singular form". So, you would say "the members of the team ARE good" or "the team IS good". The US is almost always viewed collectively, as a nation, rather than as a collection of individual states, so you would normally say "the US IS...". This changed with the US Civil War. Before that, they were viewed as a collection of independent nations, so the phrase used was "the US ARE...". StuRat 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you think the Muslim terrorists won't attack Europe, as they have already done in Spain and England. The US now uses radiation detectors at the borders, so Europe might also be an easier target. Also, the terrorists would know that Europe responds to terrorism by giving them whatever they want, such as Spain withdrawing from Iraq after the attack, while the US responds with a military counterstrike, like taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9-11. A nuclear strike on the US would likely result in an immediate nuclear strike on the perpetrators, and that would have to influence their target selection. StuRat 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You also underestimate the reasons behind the protests. The Islamists are trying to change the Muslim perception of the West as all evil crusaders who should be killed. This is a sustained strategy, and produces suicide bombers willing to attack Europe and the US. Europeans will die as a result of these protests, at some future date, from Muslims who were "inspired" by them to jihad. StuRat 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Spain bombings

Oh no, not that again. Spain withdrew from Iraq because the population was opposed to the war and voted for the party that had already declared it would withdraw from Iraq. That was all decided before the bombing, so had nothing to do with that. I've noticed this notion with other USians before. Maybe you should use some their sources of information, say the BBC. Then again, I don't watch CNN, so maybe I should practise what I preach. I suppose we all have too little time to follow all sources and that is a major source of miscommunication across the Atlantic. And that's between historically strongly linked cultures. No wonder people across the world misunderstand each other.

I believe the election in Spain was a close one before the bombings, and the bombings assured that the party which wanted to withdraw from Iraq won. StuRat 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What I remember is that the opposition was already winning in the polls over just this issue. If the bombings further affected the results I don't know (and that would of course be pure speculation). I see that this is wonderfully misinterpreted in the Spain article. Of course they thought it was ETA. What else would one think in Spain. DirkvdM 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I recall it being "too close to call", which is exactly why Spain was bombed at that point, to influence the election. Do you really think it was just a wild coincidence ? And my point remains that in Spain that made voters more likely to vote for the party which would appease the terrorists by withdrawing from Iraq. In the US, it would have had the opposite effect; people would have voted in the party who promised to find and kill the terrorists responsible. StuRat 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Foreign news programs

I do quite regularly watch the BBC. I have also gone to web sites for al-Jazeera ("the death to America network"), the North Korean News Agency, and others for "the other side of the story". I'm fairly impressed by the BBC, at least until they get into weird European sports (what the heck is "footy tipping" anyway ?). On the other hand al-Jazeera is strongly biased against the West and the North Korean News Agency is just plain silly and incompetent. Their English translators are pathetic (perhaps they plan to kidnap some English speakers as they did Japanese when they needed Japanese translators ?). For example, in one article they repeatedly referred to the name of their own country as Koran ! I emailed them an offer to help them spell the name of their country correctly in all future articles, LOL. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Did they return an offer to help you spell your name in Korean? :). I haven't a clue either what 'footy tipping' is. But then I never watch any sports. DirkvdM 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, if I were to write a foreign language newspaper, I would learn the language or hire a competent translator. Apparently they don't feel the need to do either. StuRat 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

footy=football; tipping=betting. cheers.

Thanks for the info ! StuRat 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist targets

Those detectors at the US border will only protect (to some extent) against threats coming from abroad. Also, if someone with terrorist intentions gets his hands on a nuclear bomb they will make sure they use that unique opportunity for the right cause, not just anything. They will find a way to get it into the US if they want to. And else, if it's a pissed off Muslim, he's more likely use it against Israel. Why bomb Europe? Just because you have a device? The goal is more important than that.

I already explained why they have and will continue to attack Europe: easier access and better results (withdrawal vs counter-attack), etc. How do you explain why they have already bombed Europe if you think they have no reason to do so ? StuRat 19:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Essential point: who is 'they'? The whole idea of terrorist organisations is largely made up because you need to pinpoint an enemy. I just saw a documentary on the psyche of suicide terrorists, based on researches into attacks in Israel and the one in London. Turns out there is no 'psychological profile' for such people and they come from all walks of life, dumb, clever, rich, poor. But more to the point here is that they get their ideas through friends and then maybe seek out something like Al Qaeda, who only get 20% of their recruits through their own scouting - the rest came to them on their own accord (although I wonder where they get these figures). The London bombers were a bunch of friends (educated friendly youngsters) who started developing radical ideas, didn't seek any outside contacts (they even lost contacts because of their radicalisation, and a solution may have to be sought here) and then did the whole thing by themselves. And I read in a newspaper article that most bombings (can't remember if this was about suicide bombings) take place in those 'terrorist countries'. Suicide bombers typically don't come from abroad - they're locals. As for their reasons, I haven't a clue, nor has anyone else, but the main thing is that it is all rather unpredictable. You can't tell where the next one will hit, but the US is obviously a favourite target. If they can't get to the US they're not going to say, ah well, let's pick just any other country. Unless there's a US embassy there of course... DirkvdM 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous groups, like al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in Iraq (not really the same group), Hamas, Jemaah Islamiyah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, etc.

There are also terrorists that act independently, but are typically inspired by some group: al-Qaeda specifically broadcasts targets on al-Jazeera for other groups or individuals to attack. StuRat 01:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the US being their favorite target, wrong again, that would be Russia and/or India. Strikes on the US just get more press. StuRat 01:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're possibly right about the press and Russia. But India? DirkvdM 09:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there have been many Muslim attacks on India, including one on their parliament, no doubt blamed on the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which is disputed between India and Pakistan. Apparently the European press doesn't bother covering those, as it interferes with their world view that Muslim terrorism is all a justified reaction to "US imperialism". Here is an article on Muslim terrorism in India: [5]. StuRat 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retaliation

If the US will retaliate against some goal that will only aggravate the situation and increase the terror-effect.

I disagree, the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan significantly weakened the terrorists, as did "turning" many of the governments which had formerly supported al-Queada and others, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. StuRat 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to warn of the danger of terrorism, why limit it to Muslims? But more importantly, you say the terrorsits, and that is in keeping with a growing misconception, that there is this one identifiable organisation, something you can focus on and fight. That's why the notion of Al Qaeda was created (which those people gladly adopted because it increased the feeling that they were a force to be reckoned with). But most of the time terrorism is the work of some individuals. Such as the recent bombing in London, which was not linked to any organisation (afaik - haven't really followed that). And both in the British Isles and Spain it's nothing new. In Madrid, first it was thought that that was the work of ETA again ('that old thing'). It's nothing new, although governments want us to believe that because it creates a new unifying common enemy after the end of the Cold War. But more to the point, you can't fight this. Only if there is an organisation do you stand a chance of tracking it down. Sorry, this was a bit messy again - I wanted to say too much at the same time and consequently lost my train of thought.

Why limit it to Muslim terrorists ? Because they have attacked many Western countries, such as Russians, Brits, Spanish, and Australians (in Bali) and caused far more deaths than non-Muslim terrorists. Thus, limited resources should be focused on the largest source of terrorism. The potential deaths are far more important than the current death toll. Maoist rebels in Nepal, for example, don't appear to pose much of a threat to Westerners outside of Nepal. So, focusing efforts on them would be foolish. Similarly, the ETA seems to be less of a threat, even in Spain, than Muslim terrorists, at present. StuRat 19:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Muslim thing is just something of the last few years. To the US it may seem like something new, but terrorism has been around for, well, pretty much ever, I suppose. And the numbers are so small that statistically sound conclusions are impossible. Just one ETA attack might tip the balance in their 'favour' (if you ignore the NY WTC because that one is hard to beat). 21:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if ETA somehow becomes the greatest terrorist threat in the world, we will focus on them, until then, the Muslim terrorists are the biggest problem and deserve our focus. StuRat 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You may want to ignore 9-11, since it didn't affect your country, but it's the biggest attack on the US since the attack on Pearl Harbor, so we're going to take it seriously. StuRat 01:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ETA was one of the major terrorist organisations (and still is, afaik, although that sort of thing is hard to tell with the small number of attacks). And it was being fought. As was the IRA. And then there have 'always' been many others, such as the Moluccan separationists in the Netherlands. And I believe the Tamil Tigers were among the biggest. It's nothing new. So why should the whole anti-terrorist thing be stepped up all of a sudden? Because the US is now a target? QED. DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You may want to ignore the Moluccan separationists because they're not active in your country and that's fine with me. But then don't bother me with your problems. :) DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And have they recently killed thousands of your citizens, and damaged your economy, in the largest attack on your nation since WW2 ? StuRat 18:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Who should respond to terrorism

Using the word "terrorists" in no way implies that all terrorists are members of the same organization any more than using the term "murders" implies that all killers are part of the same organization. There is an organization called al-Queada, and they were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. However, that particular organization has been significantly weakened as a result of the US counter-attack and may now be less able to strike directly. They do still "inspire" others, though, such as when bin Laden announces targets to attack. StuRat 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

An organization is indeed needed to fight terrorism, such as NATO. The UN, on the other hand, would have all their Muslim nations wanting these murderers to be treated gently because "they are just practicing free speech when they behead people". StuRat 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the smileys when you practise irony. :) That last remark makes you sound like the blind idiot I know you are not. DirkvdM 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

People die from lots of things, so let's ignore terrorism

Oh, and let's not forget the most important thing. Sure, terrorism is a threat, but it's a minor one compared to many other cuases of death. In the Netherlands, too, there is a lot of talk af terrorism and how dangerous it is, but the amount of people who have been killed by it is never used as an argument, simply because there are hardly any. In the last few decades there have been something like 10 deaths I believe - some Moluccan freedom fighters in the 1970's (Christians versus Muslims, ironically) and a bombing of an RAF bar by the IRA (Catholics versus Protestants). And the big one in the US cost the lives of a few thousand people. On one single occasion. And that is often overlooked. These things make a big bang when they happen, but they very rarely happen. Cars kill as many people in the US every few months. Every few months. Year in year out. Compared to that, the WTC was negligible. And then there are things like Malaria, which would easily be cured if as much effort was put into it. So let's ignore the terrorists. That's what they fear most. You can't take the terrorist out of this world (no really, you can't) but you can take the terror out of the terrorists. DirkvdM 10:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The cost of 9-11 to the US economy was much higher than the few thousand deaths would indicate, particularly hitting the airline industry hard. Many airlines went under as a result. And, again, the potential damage that can be done by terrorism is far worse, if left unopposed. Under Clinton the US did just that, with no response or a token one, and al-Queada steadily increased the boldness of their attacks as a result. StuRat 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you put economic loss over the los off life then let me put environmental gain over that. :) (No, you don't have to tell me you didn't mean it that way.) It seems that on 12-9-2001 the skies in the US were exceptionally clear - which was actually an environmental threat because there weren't enough clouds (as caused by planes) to block the sun or something. Odd, those polluting planes actually have a positive effect too, so my original assertion is not correct in that sense. But I digress. DirkvdM 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A good comparison with terrorism would be AIDS. In the early 1980's, it only killed a few people, so many argued it should be ignored and money spent on diseases that effect more people. Failing to work to control it assured that it would spread, however, and now it kills millions a year (mainly in Africa). StuRat 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good comparison. There is an extremely simple cure to aids - use condoms. And there is an extremely simple cure to terrorism - ignore it. DirkvdM 21:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as the cure for AIDS requires that we TAKE ACTION, so does the cure for terrorism. StuRat 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Nice title! :) DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have been clearer about what I meant here. Of course action should be taken against terrorism (as has always been the case - like I said, nothing new). But that shouldn't go to the point that one becomes a terrorist oneself (not to mention reduced returns as one takes something further). But what I meant is that politicians and the media should not give it too much attention because that's exactly what the terrorists want. Of course you can't ignore a bombing, but why not deal with it the way it has always been dealt with? Big headline right after the attack, some follow up the next day and then get on with life. That's probably how people in Spain and the UK dealt with it. And you'll learn to ignore it too after you've suffered as many attacks as they have. DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is new is the global nature of Muslim terrorism. Those groups you mentioned mainly attacked one country, like the ETA vs. Spain, the IRA against England, the Tamil Tigers against India, and even the Palestinian terrorists against Israel. In such a situation, it could be addressed by individual nations alone, with occasional help from others if a suspect was in their territory. Now, however, Muslim extremism shoots around the world and targets everyone, even over very minor issues, like the Mohammed cartoons. This requires a global response, not local. The terrorists also move from country to country en-masse as the old country becomes less hospitable. So, just chasing them around won't work, as they can always find a country somewhere without a functioning government able to deal with them; they need to be imprisoned or killed, instead. StuRat 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

US news bias

Oh, and speaking of us reading different sources, I wonder if you USians were exposed to the following. The US State Department published its annual report on human rights in the world, in which China was again heavily criticised, but the US itself not mentioned. So China filled in that gap and published a report on the US, which pointed out

Iraq casualties

• Iraq: 100.000 dead since 2003, mostly women and children

Numbers seem quite high, and only a small portion of those are from the US military. Most of those deaths were caused by the terrorists. That is exactly what the terrorists want, to blame all their killings on Western nations who supposedly "caused them by not giving in". They also need to be compared with Saddam's genocide programs and wars, where perhaps millions were killed. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

GITMO

• Guantanamo Bay

That's a few hundred people, many of whom are quite nasty characters; I'm sure China has far more political prisoners than that. At least one person who was released went right back into terrorism again. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Gun ownership in US

• Nowhere do civilians cary as many guns as in the US (192 million)

Not a human rights issue. In fact, one argument in the US is that gun ownership prevents human rights abuses by the government, since they know that the population can fight back if provoked. The number of guns is also a useless statistic, that largely measures just the population of a country, it's the percentage of the population who carry them that should be measured. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so that's the cause of all those human rights abuses in Europe. And that's why there isn't any of that in Cuba, because there all the people are actually trained in gunfighting by the government from childhood. DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing the point about guns. Crime and violence isn't solely a result of guns, so is a separate issue. Neither guns nor crime is a "human rights" issue. You seem to have defined "human rights" as "anything bad". It's not, it's a systematic intentional abuse of people by their government. StuRat 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Phone tapping by Bush

• Phone-tapping by Bush

Many other countries, including Europeans, do the same thing. China is known to limit access to the Internet, too. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

US prison population

• Largest prison population per capita (almost 2,3 million)

That would only be a human rights issue if they are wrongly imprisoned. Are you suggesting we should just let murders go free to keep our stats down ? StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe make sure you have fewer murderers. How? Ehm, fewer guns, less poverty and less brutal law enforcement? You have to admit that having 1% of your population in prison is a sign there is something wrong somewhere (I wonder what the figures are for other countries - do we have an article on that?). And if the causes (whichever they are) have something to do with the way the country is run (and of course they do) then one could argue that by definition they are political prisoners (out on a limb here). DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that 1% is too high. I think that many people may be evil in any society, and Europe just is more lenient with them, giving them parole, instead. On the other end, Muslim countries may execute people instead of imprisoning them, which brings their stats for prison population down. Some US states have the death penalty, but it is rarely used, with the possible exception of Texas. StuRat 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have misdefined "political prisoners" as anyone in prison. They aren't, they are those put there for political reasons, say if they are in the opposition political party. Calling all prisoners "political prisoners" does a severe disservice to those who really are, and is typical of Europe at the moment, putting the US in the worst possible light for very minor problems while ignoring severe problems in other countries. StuRat 18:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg's NY campaign finance

• Michael Bloomberg spent 100 dollars per voter to get re-elected as mayor of New York

Not a human rights issue either. Spending per capita on anything is mainly a measure of the wealth of a nation. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you haven't first made sure the people aren't poor (next point). DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You lost me here. Are you suggesting he was giving poor people money so they would vote for him ? No, that money was spent on advertisement, not bribes, so the poverty of the people of New York is totally unrelated to how much he spent. StuRat 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in US

• 37 million poor (12,7% of the population), and rising

Again, not a human rights issue. Lower than many countries, including China. There is food and shelter available from charities for anyone who needs it. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A comparison with poor contries is of course not fair. To me the wealth of a country is defined by the wealth of, say, the poorest inhabitants (say the poorest 5% or so because you always have 'dropouts'). And that in the perspective of the wealth of the country as a whole. Al contries have a mix of capitalism/free market (money making) and socialism (fair money distribution). Too much socialism is bad for the country and too much capitalism is bad for the people (one of my oldest adagios). One has to fund the right balance and that is a political choice and therefore a human rights issue. If you choose a system that keeps some people poor you have decided to deprive them of fundamental rights. DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe a comparison with poor countries is fair, because many of them are poor precisely because they attempted to provide equal pay to unskilled, incompetent, uneducated workers, or even worse, the unemployed. This saps the strength out of the economy by removing any incentive to work, become competent, educated, and skilled. This is certainly true under communism, but also, to a lesser extent, under socialism. Calling anything any government does a human rights issue is just hyperbole on your part. I disagree with the phrase "[government] keeps people poor" meaning they are somehow prevented from improving themselves. We do have universal free education up through high school and then cheap community colleges (free, in many cases) to allow everyone to obtain marketable skills. Those who are poor have simply opted not to do what it requires to succeed in our society. Thus, they have chosen poverty, the government hasn't chosen it for them. StuRat 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Black families incomes

• Average income of black families 1/10 of that of white families

That seems extreme, I would put it at perhaps 1/2. Are you sure they didn't mean wealth, as opposed to income ? There seems to be a cultural thing where many blacks spend all the money they get immediately. That's there choice, not the governments. The only way to assure equality of income would be if everyone was paid exactly the same regardless of education level, competence, hours worked, danger, etc. That would be true communism. Even China doesn't believe in that any more. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I just copied what I read, so I don't know what was meant. And there is bound to be some twisting of the truth. But it is true that in a very capitalist society the richest 10% have an income that is somewhere between 10 and 100 times higher than that of the poorest 10%. True communism doesn't have any money. No country ever claimed to have true communism, where there is no government. Some countries strive for it, ironically through a system with an excessively high government influence (state socialism). DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they didn't have paper or metal money, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have any money. If each person has some quota for each item they can get (such as "one kg of tuna per week"), that still has a monetary value associated with it, whether they call it money or not. StuRat 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Women in Congress

• Women take up only 145 of the seats in Senate and 15,4% of the seats in the House of Representatives

Women have the vote, and are the majority, so apparently most of them choose men as their leaders. Do you propose that we ignore their votes and appoint an equal number of reps based on gender ? StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, not my criticism, but China's, and of course they bring this up because it is the only country in the world that comes even close to a equal division of power between men and women. DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear on your use of "it", do you mean China or the US is "the only country in the world that comes even close to a equal division of power between men and women" ? If you meant China, I disagree, it seems ruled by men much as it always has been. StuRat 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rape

• 5,3 million women get raped per year

Again, only would be a human rights issue if the government was committing or condoning these rapes. This figure seems inflated, they must be including prostitutes who get "stiffed" for the bill. :-) StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As with so many things here, it is not so much a matter of the government doing it, but rather of the government creating a society in which certain things happen. The US government is very much focused on non-interference (in its own society), especialy where economics are concerned. If you don't do anything you can't be directly blamed for it, but you could be blamed for inaction. I don't know to what extent that might apply to the US, but it most certainly is an important aspect of the way things are done in the US. DirkvdM 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about here. What "government inaction" is forcing men to rape women ? Rapist most definitely are prosecuted when caught, unless we let them all go to keep our prison population down to a level you find acceptable, LOL. StuRat 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

US democracy = "toy for the rich"

The US is called "a country where democracy is a toy for the rich". I'm sure these stats have been tweaked in some way, but you can only take that so far. And I'm sure that other governments and media do exactly the same - one has to read between the lines (for example, I wonder why the income thing focuses on families). But what I meant to ask is if this is mentioned in any newspaper in the US. Or maybe that will come when president Hu Jintao visits the US. DirkvdM 10:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so that the US "democracy is a toy for the rich". I am in Detroit where they always elect a black mayor, because the city is mostly black. According to your stats some rich white guy should always win by outspending the black candidates. StuRat 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

US press inclusion of criticism by foreign governments

And yes, such things do make the newspapers here, although most are not called "human rights abuses", that's just China trying to deflect criticism away from itself. StuRat 20:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, what I meant is if this Chinese report was covered in US media. Then again, I happened to read it in one newspaper and don't know if others covered it, so if you haven't heard of it that doesn't mean no-one has written about it. But more important is how much coverage something gets and if it is presented unaltered. I put this list in for the reason you give in the title, to check if you get different news over there. They're not necessarily my points of criticism. Of course, I didn't mind the gratuitous stabbing it provided (I think I used the double meaning of 'gratuitous' quite niftily here).

By the way, if I seem a bit unresponsive in the next week or so, that'll be because my internet access may be limited. DirkvdM 10:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall this particular set of points, but the press regularly reports on foreign countries' criticisms of the US, yes. If the US criticizes, say Sudan, for the genocide of blacks in Darfur, then Sudan says something like "but there are poor black people in the US !". Then Europe seems to take the bait and ignores the far more serious problem of genocide in Darfur and repeats "my God, did you know there are some poor black people in the US ? That's a human rights abuse !". StuRat 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)