Actually, that is called "fascism" (defined, by Mussolini, as a philosophy that humans are valuable insofar as being beneficial to their society, represented as the political state). "Communism" is specifically an economic ideology (having been defined, by Marx/Engels, as "the abolition of private property"), although it is similarly collectivist (attributing highest value to a population - either the entire society, or a faction within it - and that population's purportedly collective interests, rather than to persons and their individual, or freely cooperative, pursuits of their own interests), and it is likely to be accompanied by other (e.g. - political) manifestations of collectivism.
Capital = a material object (e.g. - a tool, a machine, an area of land, a factory, etc.) used for economic purposes; sometimes called "means of production."
Capitalism (also called "free economy" or "private enterprise") - capital is owned (i.e. - controlled) by individual (private) persons or voluntary associations of persons.
Socialism - capital is owned by the government.
Communism - capital is owned by the community of workers. First, capital is confiscated (e.g. - "nationalized") from private owners (the "class of capitalists"), so that it is then owned by government, which represents the "class of workers." Theoretically, this is a temporary situation, which remains until the members of the society have developed morally, to the point that all members/persons have become willing to pursue only the "common good." When this moral condition has been achieved, there is no longer any need for a government, and all capital is owned by the entire community. In practice, historically, that expected state of moral perfection, of society, never occurs (despite even violent attempts to achieve it - including, by killing or acting to "re-educate" those "counter-revolutionary" persons who manifest recurring capitalist inclinations or otherwise fail to cooperate), so that, to the extent that "communism" has occurred, it has generally exemplified a system having apparently become stuck in the socialist (economic) and fascist (political) phase of theoretical development. A hive of social insects, however, seems to do communism pretty well.
It can be noted that political systems are closely related to economic systems, since a political system (the structure and functions of a government) significantly includes mechanisms for ensuring civilized commerce, which commerce is arguably the principal benefit of a condition of civilization. However, a political system is distinct from an economic system - being not the method of making decisions about commerce, only.
BTW, economist Milton Friedman has written (in Capitalism and Freedom) that somewhat free economies have been observed, in the absence of general, political freedom, but that he has never observed a stable system exemplifying political freedom, in the absence of economic freedom.
I think that this may have been mentioned, elsewhere, but anyway...
I would like it if ramps could be configured by width (so that one wouldn't have to use several ramp objects, aligned, in order to produce one wide ramp) and also by angle of incline.
X-Plane is protected by a time-limitation on using a joystick. The program checks for a DVD in the drive, and if it isn't there, then the joystick stops functioning after, I think, 15min. Otherwise, the program is fully functional in all respects, as far as I know.
The quality of some aspects of the program, is less than totally satisfactory. Some included aircraft are not textured, and some do not have a decent cockpit. However, a user can take care of such things, for himself. Perhaps the best aspect of X-Plane - besides a very good and versatile physics engine - is that it is thoroughly configurable; additional programs are included, for modeling airfoils, aircraft, panels and scenery, and virtually any aircraft, of any size/weight/shape, can be created, with any reasonable number of piston or jet engines (and there is also rocket-assist, at least), and there is a large number of instruments and such, in various styles, with which panels (fully clickable) can be constructed.
Additionally, the program can be interfaced with some full-motion simulator platforms (I have no experience with this), and reportedly, the simulation physics are realistic enough to have been used by some training facilities and actual aircraft designers.
The general features available, are at least equivalent, I think, to those in MSFS, although seemingly less polished, overall. The documentation is pretty incomplete, although the basic stuff is easy enough to figure out.
Improvements in the "X-System" are always ongoing, as with LFS; minor patches are free, new versions must be repurchased (I currently have version 8, upon which experience, the above description is based; I expect to buy version 9, when I get a new computer). What I especially like in X-Plane, compared to MSFS, is the ability to fly vectored-thrust aircraft; I like the helicopters, too, although I also like those of MSFS and, as I stated, MSFS is a more polished program and so, more satisfying in some ways, although I don't think that I could really explain why it feels that way (just aesthetics, somehow, I guess).
I am curious to know, from owners of version 9, if the virtual cockpits have been improved. In version 8, there is a virtual panel, but if you rotate it too much, you find that there is just blank (transparent) space, surrounding it. Have these been filled-in, so that there is really a virtual cockpit, now?
It might not be a bad idea simply to have a driver model move its arm and hand to cover the gearshift, whenever the clutch is depressed, and back to the wheel, when the clutch is released. That would sort of provide an illusion of seeing the driver shift, without dealing with the delay issue involved with actually having him shift.
I do not want to be "targeted" with advertising, while playing an otherwise enjoyable game. Also, I don't want my computer programmed to expend its resources, for the purpose of downloading such annoyances. Implementing such an idea, would be a magnificently effective way to extinguish my interest in LFS.
Update: A bailout plan was eventually passed, and Bush has signed it into law. The House actually went with the Senate plan, which included a whole lot of extraneous stuff that was added to make it appealing to legislators who otherwise wouldn't have voted for it. The original plan was 3 pages; the plan that passed, was ~450 pages.
Not quite. The Senate passed a bill, but the House (which had voted down a bill, previously) is still working on trying to formulate a new plan. It has been reported that there will be a vote on some proposal, in the House, today or tomorrow.
No; a "recession" is defined (in the USA, anyway) as "two consecutive quarters of negative [GDP] growth."
The last quarter of last year, GDP growth was down a bit (about -0.2%, as I recall), after pretty decent growth (3-4%), consistently for several years. The first quarter of this year, growth was up, about 2% (iirc), and the second quarter, up by about 3.3%.
So, however much people may want to complain about the U.S. economy (particularly, for political purposes), the fact is that there still has not been any "recession."
It is possible that the current mortgage/bank problem may result in a recession, but I don't know what the GDP has been doing, during the third quarter of this year, and even if there has been negative growth during the third quarter, there would also need to be negative growth during the fourth quarter, in order to be able to state accurately that the U.S. economy is "in recession;" such information will not be available until the end of this year.
Don't put a lot of text on any slides. Doing so, will tend to cause the audience to spend a lot of time reading the slide, rather than paying attention to what you're saying. The PowerPoint is just an aid; it should provide useful info, such as pictures, to make your presentation more understandable, but it need not be impressive, in itself. As already stated, make sure that what you do show, is easily legible (no weird color combinations, use a large enough font, etc.). Also, practice your presentation, with the PowerPoint, so that the presentation works smoothly when you're in front of the audience.
Proton: a tiny, positively charged, nuclear particle - like a hydrogen atom, without its electron (the charge on it, enables it to be accelerated and steered by magnetic fields)
It used to be possible to look all the way around to the back, using track-ir, but a recent patch limited the view rotation to 90deg.
I liked it better, the previous way, but the new way is alleged to be "more realistic." I just find it to be more inconvenient (and indeed, "really annoying"), since the mirrors do not provide enough of a view to allow useful driving in reverse - which is an especially significant problem when one is stuck in a narrow area between barriers.
I vote that it should be restored to the previous way; some compromises in "realism" are appropriate in recognition of the limitations of a computer simulation. And "realistically," peripheral vision would allow a view to the back, even if restraints prevented one's head from turning more than 90deg. Furthermore, I am more interested in being able to drive the car properly, than in being excessively "realistic."
Further-furthermore, a button to present a rear view, isn't "realistic," either - I'd rather be able to turn my head, using track-ir.
I would add that the limitation of view rotation, to 90deg., has been the single exception to a generalization that each patch has made LFS better.
It doesn't seem to have quite the same purpose as tracklab (its purpose, rather than drawing lines, is placing objects, in a similar but more easy and convenient way than LFS's built-in Autocross editing functions). Nevertheless, it may be useful to you.
I haven't used it for a while, and it is possible that there may be some incompatibility with LFS patch Z, particularly wrt the track maps (I seem to recall that Blackwood was slightly changed).
Actually, the Sun "controls" the winds. Local heating, from solar radiation (affected, also, by the type of terrain and its absorbing/reflecting properties), produces regions of hotter and cooler air, and consequently lower and higher pressures (due to the thermal expansion and compression of the air), and air then moves from regions of higher pressure, to regions of lower pressure. Such air movement is wind.
Tides are a result of different magnitudes of external gravitational forces, acting upon different parts of Earth, as Earth rotates and thus changes the position of its parts, wrt external gravitational fields - especially, that of the Moon, although the the Sun's gravitational field also has an influence, affecting the comparative heights of tides, during different times of a year.
I am unable to find, in your link, any support for your assertion. Furthermore, the "Introduction" page of that website, gives reason for regarding it as at least uncertain that there will even be any permanent bases. If there were any permanent bases, however, it would not surprise me if they were located in the general proximity of oilfields (or even distribution centers) rather than in the middle of cities, since locating a military base within a concentrated population center would likely be inconvenient for everyone concerned, while locating one near oil facilities would be useful for defense/deterrence of any attacks on what your other linked website states to be, even in Saddam Hussein's regard, "Iraq's most precious natural resource."
I note that your entire statement, above (except for the last, separate sentence), is directly quoted from that website (for which reason, it would be stylistically proper to give credit to the actual writer of it, btw - at least, by enclosing it all within quotation marks; and this is not the first time that you have behaved in such a way).
Anyway, as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan was neither a member of the US Presidential Cabinet, nor a member of Congress, so I don't have any reason for supposing that he has any specialized knowledge on the subject of US intelligence or military affairs. He is, of course, entitled to have his own opinions, as other American citizens do, although I haven't read his book, so I don't know - nor does your linked website present - any basis for supposing what might have informed the opinion that he has expressed, here (which, btw, does not include any assertions about the war's being "illegal," nor about "making some of Bush's oil pal's [sic] even richer"). Furthermore, "about oil" is a pretty nebulous statement, anyway; it is well known to pretty much everybody, that its being a source for oil, is the predominant reason that the Middle East, generally, is notably significant to the USA. One should be careful about conjecturing from this, specific accusations about what were the purposes of the Iraq War.
I did, however, have a look at that website, generally, and found it to be troubling. Yet I also found it to be, apparently, representative of the views of Iraqi insurgent groups, rather than those of Iraq's elected government, or otherwise seeking to provide an inclusive examination of its subject, and without citations to show factual bases for its assertions.
I also noted, particularly, that it continues to represent "Haditha" as an atrocity committed by US soldiers, although 7 of the 8 accused soldiers have been exonerated, with the 8th case still in process, on a charge that is not significant to the basic assertion that there was any atrocity, committed. Of course, some may wish to argue that this represents a "cover-up," by the USA, of "war crimes" that it committed. Others have argued that these soldiers were put through personal hell, insofar as being so charged, in order to satisfy public-relations concerns, by demonstrating that the USA was not ignoring/condoning any alleged atrocities by its soldiers.
This is neither any "US party line," nor is it consistent with what I have written.
I have already addressed this.
History is perhaps more complicated than your own understanding of it. George Orwell was a novelist, and one should be careful to avoid extending his ideas beyond what they were.
The Soviet Union conquered territories and enslaved their peoples, under totalitarian, communist rule. This does not recognizably characterize the "US system."
No; that is, in fact, why my analogy is useful. The USA waged war against Germany, even though Germany had not directly attacked the USA. And the same is true of Iraq. If it were arguable that the USA should not have waged war against Iraq, since Iraq had not attacked the USA (and was thus not a "specific threat"), then the same could be said about Nazi Germany (that it, too, was not a "specific threat"). But I think that most people recognize that Nazi Germany was a threat, nevertheless. And I think that there are reasons (that I have described) that Iraq was also a threat, nevertheless.
Whether Iraq was or was not a threat, is not recognizably dependent upon whether other nations had any history of supporting or trading with terrorist organizations.
It is a common (and annoying) rhetorical technique, to misrepresent an analogy. My purpose was to illustrate the concept, and significance, of a "specific threat" in contrast to an implicit one. This pertains not at all to the comparative military capabilities of Nazi Germany or Iraq. It pertains to whether the USA's waging of war, against an adversary, was preceded or not, by an actual attack conducted by that adversary.
I think that you are right about that. Thank you for the clarifying reminder.
I don't believe you.
Interesting consideration. My thinking was that it was better to seek to solve the problem, decisively, than to leave it to fester persistently, forever.
No; it does represent some faith in general humanity, informed by many expressions of empathy and compassion, that I have directly perceived, as well as a course in neurobiology.
I think that it would be impracticable for the USA to attempt, militarily, to defeat all evil in the world (and unfair to US soldiers, who presumably enlisted to defend their country, and unfair to US citizens, who established and maintain their government for the purpose of defending them). Even so, I think that there was good reason to wish to relieve the Iraqi people of their sufferring under Saddam Hussein's rule. Therefore, I am pleased that the Iraqi people no longer suffer under Saddam Hussein's rule, and I recognize that the desire to accomplish this, was part of what motivated the invasion of Iraq.
However, this does not mean that the USA is now logically obliged to attempt, militarily, to defeat all evil in the world. Nor does it mean that, therefore, the USA was logically obliged to refrain from relieving the Iraqi people of their sufferring under Saddam Hussein's rule, since not seeking also to defeat, militarily, evil in Africa or elsewhere.
Right. And one can argue that Japan's attack does not constitute a specific threat by Nazi Germany - merely a threat that was implied. And one can argue that the USA should have waited until after a German attack on the USA, just to be sure.
I have not stated that Hussein was incapable of feeding his people - merely that he instead spent the Oil-for-Food money on other things, and then complained that the result was that his people were not fed.
Saddam agreed, as a condition of the Gulf War ceasefire, to refrain from developing weapons, and to destroy certain classes of weapons that he had, and to enable this to be verified by permitting unrestricted inspections. Instead, he obstructed, and eventually terminated, the inspections and proceeded to develop weapons. It is doubtful that he "knew" what the eventual result would be, and one would reasonably suppose that instead, he expected to be able to get away with what he was doing. And he did, indeed, get away with it, for many years (and would likely have continued to get away with it, if not for the 9/11 event).
Russia, at least, was available. And France, too, iirc.
Coalition soldiers went to extraordinary lengths (and risks), to avoid killing or injuring non-combatants. As always, "war is a terrible thing, but it's not the worst thing," as somebody once said (I think that it was John Stuart Mill).
WRT the USA, at least, the war was not illegal, since having been authorized by Congress. Nor, of course, do I regard it as being for no reason.
This makes no sense. One cannot formally "perceive someone to be a threat." Instead, one may infer that someone is a threat, because of perceived evidence that informs such an inference - by which point, one had already acquired evidence. Your statement basically means that one should go looking for evidence that one has has evidence (and then, I suppose, one should go looking for evidence that one has that evidence, ad absurdum).