Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
On Saturday 21 Jun 2008 11:15:11 am MUSARRAT KHAN wrote: > Nor say of anything, “I shall be sure to do so and > so tomorrow” without adding INSHALLAH……..May God grant you more > wisdom and tolerance. er - surely you are not implying that Danese and Rishab are lacking in wisdom and tolerance? shiv
Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:57:10PM +0530, ss wrote: > On Saturday 21 Jun 2008 11:15:11 am MUSARRAT KHAN wrote: > > May God grant you more wisdom and tolerance. > > er - surely you are not implying that Danese and Rishab are lacking in wisdom > and tolerance? hehe well i suppose everyone could always do with a bit _more_ wisdom and tolerance :-)
Re: [silk] Adios Banana?
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Perry E. Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [1] My favourite are the red ones -- any idea what they're called? chevazhai? or is it the malai pazham (but that is green->yellow, not red, afaik) > I've also very little experience with "real" mangoes -- the ones sold > here are mostly notable for their durability, which is similar to that hmm... strange you say that, coz even as a kid i've heard the street vendors complain that the best produce goes to the lucrative export market. > of automobile bumpers. Unfortunately, they're also about as flavorful > as automobile bumpers. yeah, was impressed the first time I walked down the aisle in an American supermarket. The perfect veg/fruits sure as hell did look good on display, had perfect colour, no bruises, not rotten, happily lugged it all back until i experienced the agony of eating the tasteless produce.. Exchanging flavour for durability didnt taste good at all. Closer home, the local tomato variety i get in bangalore (do they call it "naati" here?), used to be available in a jumbo size in bombay (sourced from bangalore according to the sabzi-wallah) oh-so-many eons ago, but today only the fleshy hybrid is sold there, which is utterly tasteless imo. > South Asian friends of mine in New York > regularly get this distant, misty look in their eyes when they start > telling me about how much better mangoes are in India... Less than a month ago, haapus from bombay tasted different (less sweet, less everything...) than yesteryears and this for a variety that you can tell by its smell. Just touching the fruit would leave that nice fruity fragrance on the palmsNot so today. The ones i bought in Blr had that old taste i like. . but the biggest difference -- I dont get to scream "keeda" on sighting a dead one in the fruits nowadays :-/
[silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Hello! Here's a thought: Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social? I'm tending towards conflict as a requirement for change, growth and potential optimisation. As an aside, I heard a great line - It's not the environment that needs to be saved, it's us. I suppose that's true. The environment, in some way or form will survive, it's us and our lifestyle that's endangered. Is humanity a virus? -Gautam -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Airport Check-In Design
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 7:46 AM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Bloody hell, that's not even the issue. Just eight jetways, no parallel >> > > Of which only four can be used if it's wide-body jets. Epic fail. > > >> Albert Brunner and the rest of the foreign importees on BIAL were managing >> ZRH .. Zurich. Tiny, pocket handkerchief airport but even that has more >> > > Question: Would managing the Zurich airport be a good criterion to select > someone to manage an airport? Is it big? Well traffic-ed? Or were we sold > down the river? ...maybe they did not get time to study the design aspects in major airports before rushing to Bangalore to finish the __international__ airport by Mar'08. This is a developing nation afterall, how hard can it be ?! At the very least they could have hired better spin doctors to cover the warts, instead they go around leaving anon comments praising bial, on personal blogs...sheesh.
Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
On Sunday 22 Jun 2008 4:19:00 pm Rishab Ghosh wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:57:10PM +0530, ss wrote: > > On Saturday 21 Jun 2008 11:15:11 am MUSARRAT KHAN wrote: > > > May God grant you more wisdom and tolerance. > > > > er - surely you are not implying that Danese and Rishab are lacking in > > wisdom and tolerance? > > hehe well i suppose everyone could always do with a bit _more_ wisdom and > tolerance :-) heh heh heh. Yes yes of course. Inshallah. shiv
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
If you think of the status quo as inertia, then physics tells us a force (which I'm gonna call conflict) is required to create change. In my work career I've seen this over and over. Those who are guarding the status quo do not go gently in a new direction, even if that direction is clearly better. I remember how legal secretaries at the law firm I worked for early in my career fought the advent of desktop PCs (they knew how to be productive with IBM Selectric typewriters and the Wang word processor down the hall was a specialized piece of equipment). Time and again I've seen there's always *somebody* profiting from the status quo who believes they have to guard against changes. Of course I won't even start commenting about Sun and Java ;-). Danese On Jun 22, 2008, at 5:47 AM, Gautam John wrote: Hello! Here's a thought: Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social? I'm tending towards conflict as a requirement for change, growth and potential optimisation. As an aside, I heard a great line - It's not the environment that needs to be saved, it's us. I suppose that's true. The environment, in some way or form will survive, it's us and our lifestyle that's endangered. Is humanity a virus? -Gautam -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would > individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the > absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, > individual and social? You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely accepted, objective definition of "progress". Tell me, what is the progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? What about the conflict that is typical to Indian homes: one between a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law? What individual or societal potential does it maximize? > I'm tending towards conflict as a requirement for change, growth and > potential optimisation. I tend to the view that change, growth, potential optimization, stagnation, peace AND conflict are all part of human nature. The first thing that your question brought to mind was Harry Lime's words (written by Graham Greene) from the film _The Third Man_: Harry Lime: Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ :-) ]. Step back! Thaths -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Thaths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these > conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? Well, perhaps it's a question of being on a time-line. That all conflicts tend to progress but not necessarily while the conflict is ongoing. There's something about systems in chaos tend to order or some such? > BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ > :-) ]. Step back! Please explain? -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Thaths wrote: BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ :-) ]. Step back! WTF? -- <<< * >>> Madhu Menon Shiok Far-eastern Cuisine Indiranagar, Bangalore Visit us @ http://www.shiokfood.com Shiok on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bangalore-India/Shiok/7498426855
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
> > You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely > accepted, objective definition of "progress". Tell me, what is the > progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of > Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these > conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? I think you've misunderstood Gautam's question. He does not claim that all conflict leads to progress (whatever it may be), nor does he claim that said conflict is violent/insurgent/anti-government. Conflict can simply be a disconnect or misalignment of ideas, processes or technology. As Danese mentions, this form of conflict is quite common in business, especially in India, when it comes to computers; we are reluctant to let go of our multitudinous workforce, even if it leads to a more efficient organisation. Similarly, my mother refuses to believe that people will buy her furniture on eBay (she'd give it away for free before she sells it online, I think). Yes, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where everybody will be comfortable with change. As much as they would be amenable to it, they will face some discomfort during the transition. Ideally, such a conflict would be made painless if they were made to understand the inadequacies of their current behaviours before any change is inflicted upon them. It is possible that they will eventually grow to appreciate the benefits of the change, but they won't go without a fight. Newton's Laws of Motion are applicable here as well. -- Sumant Srivathsan sumants.blogspot.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Thaths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these >> conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? > Well, perhaps it's a question of being on a time-line. That all > conflicts tend to progress but not necessarily while the conflict is > ongoing. There's something about systems in chaos tend to order or > some such? Of what comfort is this to the populations stuck in the middle of these conflicts? If conflict is a precondition to Progress, one should consider the question if amputations, rape, murder, mutilations, torture and worse are acceptable prices to pay for said Progress. Also, I do not buy the time-line argument. Give any situation enough time and it is bound to change. In some cases, it changes for the better, and in some it changes for the worse (and possibly for the better at a later date). To assume that the change for the better happened because of the conflict itself is to ignore the cases where the change happens for the worse. >> BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ >> :-) ]. Step back! > Please explain? I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Libertarianism as an abyss and pleaded for you to step back from it. S. -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Adios Banana?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:10 PM, va <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Perry E. Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> [1] My favourite are the red ones -- any idea what they're called? > > chevazhai? or is it the malai pazham (but that is green->yellow, not red, > afaik) > > > > I've also very little experience with "real" mangoes -- the ones sold > > here are mostly notable for their durability, which is similar to that > > hmm... strange you say that, coz even as a kid i've heard the street > vendors complain that the best produce goes to the lucrative export > market. > IIRC, the import of mangoes from India was not permitted in the United States until last year - I think for health and safety rather than financial reasons, though I may be wrong about this. The export market for Indian mangoes has traditionally been the Gulf and South East Asia. -- Aadisht Khanna Address for mailing lists: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
> > You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely > accepted, objective definition of "progress". Tell me, what is the > progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of > Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these > conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? > > While I hate falling into the trap of quoting management jargon, I think you're confusing underlying conflict with the medium through which said conflict expresses itself. The examples which you cited are all examples of conflict leading to war. You can also have conflict resolution through a civil/ criminal justice process, conflict between companies expressing itself in marketplace competition, (peaceful) conflict over resources resolving itself through technological development to spur productivity. This does not do anything to answer Gautam's original question. As you've pointed out, the expression of conflict can lead to war or any other sort of destructive power struggle - meaning that conflict is not sufficient to achieve progress (by any common-sensical definition of the word). Also, if you hold truck with Heroic / Great Leader theories of innovation (Mozart would have been a musical genius and written marvelous symphonies with or without facing any conflict), or Random Walk theories of history (things just happen. What the heck.), then conflict is not necessary for progress either. -- Aadisht Khanna Address for mailing lists: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
I suppose the question then is, what metric does one use to measure progress? > I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress > is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the > Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Bear with my ignorance, how is Libertarianism different from Anarchism? -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
> > I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress > is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the > Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized > Libertarianism as an abyss and pleaded for you to step back from it. > Given that the more free societies are the most prosperous, some abyss it is! -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Amit Varma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given that the more free societies are the most prosperous, some abyss it > is! Free as in personal freedom? What of the Nordic countries and their social security nets? Would that not impinge on personal freedoms? -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
> > Free as in personal freedom? What of the Nordic countries and their > social security nets? Would that not impinge on personal freedoms? > Look back on European history and see how they attained their current prosperity. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Amit Varma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Look back on European history and see how they attained their current > prosperity. That's a rather broad swathe of history to read. Short version please? As a starting point for my reading, of course.. ;) -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a starting point for my reading, of course.. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_welfare#History Seems to suggest that "...certain cultural norms dating back to the small agrarian villages... asserted conformity and egalitarianism over individualism [and] the welfare state was built much thanks to the ruling party being the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the large unions that encompassed almost the entire population, and the industries that were similarly almost all unionized." -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
[silk] How to solve a problem.
They had to have had lawyers in on this British Apache pilots complained that standard Hellfire antitank missiles were going straight through buildings and out of the other side. Even when they did explode, there were limited casualties among the Taliban inside, particularly when a building contained a number of rooms. American Apache pilots overcame the problem in Iraq with the thermobaric Hellfire. The weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without breaking international law. Eventually, they decided to get round the ethical problems by redefining the weapons. "We no longer accept the term thermobaric [for the AGM-114N] as there is no internationally agreed definition," said an MoD spokesman. "We call it an enhanced blast weapon." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4187835.ece -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Gautam John wrote: > > Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would > individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the > absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, > individual and social? > Isnt it the other way round... "progress" causing conflict ? most conflicts have been about competing for resources, the more scarce the resource (diamonds, oil, precious metals, land) , the greater the conflict. the only potential maximised is that of the winner.
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Amit Varma wrote: >> >> I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress >> is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the >> Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized >> Libertarianism as an abyss and pleaded for you to step back from it. >> > > Given that the more free societies are the most prosperous, some abyss it > is! > Isnt it a bit silly to talk about free societies == prosperity in blanket terms, when many of those free societies became prosperous out of international inequities and one sided conflicts ?
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
> > Isnt it a bit silly to talk about free societies == prosperity in > blanket terms, > when many of those free societies became prosperous out of international > inequities and one sided conflicts ? > Right. And calling belief in freedom an abyss is not silly? If there is one single cause for human progress, it is our propensity to trade with each other for personal profit. (Indeed, that's exactly what we do at Silk-list as well, trading our time and insights, such as they are, for the far greater insight we get from others.) Yet somehow clamping down on this propensity is considered 'progressive' and people who support the freedom to trade, along with all others, are disparaged. I don't get it. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Gautam, since you mentioned Sweden: http://www.mises.org/story/2259 http://mises.org/story/2190 -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Aadisht Khanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely >> accepted, objective definition of "progress". Tell me, what is the >> progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of >> Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these >> conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? > While I hate falling into the trap of quoting management jargon, I think > you're confusing underlying conflict with the medium through which said > conflict expresses itself. You have a point there. There is conflict the verb and conflict the noun. I am, of course, talking about the verb form. > The examples which you cited are all examples of > conflict leading to war. You can also have conflict resolution through a > civil/ criminal justice process, conflict between companies expressing > itself in marketplace competition, (peaceful) conflict over resources > resolving itself through technological development to spur productivity. In several of these conflicts through war that I list, the conflict as a verb is an expression of market competition. The civil war in Eastern DRC, for example, is, among other things, a conflict over resources but executed (accidental pun) through the means of violence. > This does not do anything to answer Gautam's original question. As you've > pointed out, the expression of conflict can lead to war or any other sort of > destructive power struggle - meaning that conflict is not sufficient to > achieve progress (by any common-sensical definition of the word). Also, if > you hold truck with Heroic / Great Leader theories of innovation (Mozart > would have been a musical genius and written marvelous symphonies with or > without facing any conflict), or Random Walk theories of history (things > just happen. What the heck.), then conflict is not necessary for progress > either. Thanks for this food for thought. Thaths -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
2008/6/23 Amit Varma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > http://www.mises.org/story/2259 > http://mises.org/story/2190 Thank you for these. It's an interesting counter-point to the Wiki page. However, they don't fully explain why the country stood by and allowed such change to occur. If individual liberty is as prized as the articles state, it should be relatively more immune to vagaries of the economy, yes? A more basic social norm. That doesn't seem to have been the case. They didn't wake up to find a socialist government in place. They voted them into power. -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suppose the question then is, what metric does one use to measure progress? Correct. Also, I prefer separating a happy/peaceful life (a goal) from definitions of progress (a process). >> I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress >> is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the >> Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized > Bear with my ignorance, how is Libertarianism different from Anarchism? I have heard it said that Anarchism is the ideal of the Left and Libertarianism of the Right. :-) I personally do not know where the boundary lies. Thaths -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Amit Varma wrote: > > Right. And calling belief in freedom an abyss is not silly? > > If there is one single cause for human progress, it is our propensity to > trade with each other for personal profit. (Indeed, that's exactly what we > do at Silk-list as well, trading our time and insights, such as they are, > for the far greater insight we get from others.) Yet somehow clamping down > on this propensity is considered 'progressive' and people who support the > freedom to trade, along with all others, are disparaged. I don't get it. > I did my fair bit of reading on various colonial histories. back then it used to be called free trade too and was done with a gun and a bible. there were people back then too spouting mantras about free trade and how the opponents were impeding progress. political correctness has changed since then, its more sugar coated now (the gun and the bible still hold good in many instances... ). my point is, what you call free trade isnt free for everyone. its way cheaper to buy timber from the sudan than from japan on the free trade market because sudanese timber comes from a conflict zone. it might be progressive to buy sudanese timber, but its making them poorer.
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Gotta love Google: from http://www.chaospark.com/politics/reid12.htm Libertarian or Anarchist? Libertarians are often accused of being anarchists or asked what the difference is between a libertarian and an anarchist. The popular image of anarchy is unrestrained violence and looting. Libertarians take a stronger stand against violence and looting than any other political group including republicans and democrats. The early history of the United States with its severely limited government was strongly libertarian and completely different from this image of anarchy. The misunderstanding on this issue comes from the ideal state of peace and productivity with no government interference imagined by many libertarians who forget that we are the only ones who can imagine it. In a libertarian society the evolution of voluntary institutions providing the few remaining government services might lead to the gradual elimination of government but this scenario is completely beyond the imagination of the general public and it harms our cause to confront them with such a startling vision. Here is a menu of answers to the question: What's the difference between libertarians and anarchists? The traditional answer Libertarians want severely limited government and anarchists want none. The humanist answer Libertarians are nonviolent; some anarchists are violent. The funny answer Libertarians are to anarchists as nudists are to naked people.They're just middle class & organized so they appear less crazy. The Party answer (from Andre Marrou) An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican. The graphic answer It's like the difference between a lover and a rapist.They're both in the same place but one uses violence to get there. The straight answer Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians. On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Thaths wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I suppose the question then is, what metric does one use to measure progress? Correct. Also, I prefer separating a happy/peaceful life (a goal) from definitions of progress (a process). I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Bear with my ignorance, how is Libertarianism different from Anarchism? I have heard it said that Anarchism is the ideal of the Left and Libertarianism of the Right. :-) I personally do not know where the boundary lies. Thaths -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] How to solve a problem.
On Jun 22, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Gautam John wrote: "We no longer accept the term thermobaric [for the AGM-114N] as there is no internationally agreed definition," said an MoD spokesman. "We call it an enhanced blast weapon." Technically, they have something of a point, as there are a couple different kinds of explosive systems to which this name is sometimes applied but with different properties and there does seem to be some improper conflation of the two. Most of the really nasty (side-)effects attributed to thermobaric weapons, outside of the usual damage explosives cause, are from the class of organic Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE) systems developed during the Cold War. The opponents of the AGM-114N are using peak values and models from these types of systems as the core elements of their arguments. However, the AGM-114N is a metal-augmented explosive, a technology that has been in use since at least WW2. The main function of the metal augmentation is to change the overpressure pulse shape so that naturally blast resistant construction (e.g. heavy masonry building or large steel ship) is more likely to suffer extended structural failure for a given charge mass. The mechanism by which it alters the pulse characteristics are similar to the pure FAE systems (same basic principles) but the construction is different because it is modifying the main charge rather than *being* the main charge. The military alternative is to just use bigger explosive charges less efficient for the task, which will have a larger collateral damage footprint. If I was on the receiving end, I'm not sure whether I would care if I was killed by a large inefficient explosive or a small efficient one, though my neighbors might. J. Andrew Rogers
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
> > However, they don't fully explain why the country stood by and allowed > such change to occur. If individual liberty is as prized as the > articles state, it should be relatively more immune to vagaries of the > economy, yes? A more basic social norm. That doesn't seem to have been > the case. > > They didn't wake up to find a socialist government in place. They > voted them into power. > That's because: a] The benefits of economic freedom are counterintuitive. The workings of the invisible hand, spontaneous order etc are all harder to comprehend by the average guy than a government planning things and allocating resources and taking care of everything. b] The incentives of anybody in politics are aligned towards increasing his own power and the resources available to him, which is why liberty is always under threat and "eternal vigilance", as Jefferson put it, is called for. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Danese Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gotta love Google: > > from http://www.chaospark.com/politics/reid12.htm > > Heh, thanks Danese. But honestly, such a question is hard to answer because the term 'anarchist' is so corrupted, and has so many shades of meaning, much like 'liberal'. Wikipedia has a decent summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Anarcho-libertarians are virually on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Leftist anarchists. And anarcho-libertarians differ from other libertarians, such as the minarchists, in that they favour no government at all, while minarchists, like myself, see a necessary role for government in maintaining the rule of law, defending individual rights and so on. That's putting it simply... -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
"Gautam John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bear with my ignorance, how is Libertarianism different from Anarchism? Some libertarians are minarchists, and believe the state exists to provide a court system and policing -- a so-called "night watchman" state. Other libertarians are indeed anarchists, though a particular form known as propertarian anarchists or "anarchocapitalists", and believe that it should be possible to completely privatize all government functions including courts and police. There are good wikipedia articles on these topics. I now return you to the unrelated argument on "conflict and progress", which has very little to do with libertarianism. Perry
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
"Amit Varma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anarcho-libertarians are virually on the opposite end of the spectrum from > the Leftist anarchists. And anarcho-libertarians differ from other > libertarians, such as the minarchists, in that they favour no government at > all, while minarchists, like myself, see a necessary role for government in > maintaining the rule of law, defending individual rights and so on. That's > putting it simply... That is indeed a very short summary of an extraordinarily large topic. There was an interesting Liberty Magazine editor's conference on minarchism vs anarchism in the libertarian movement a few years ago. A transcript is on line and rather worth reading... -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [silk] Adios Banana?
"Aadisht Khanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IIRC, the import of mangoes from India was not permitted in the United > States until last year - I think for health and safety rather than financial > reasons, though I may be wrong about this. It was mostly out of fear of agricultural pests being imported. They are now allowing irradiated mangoes into the US from India, with the radiation levels set high enough to kill pests. There was much fanfare in the newspapers about the start of the trade, but I've yet to see an Indian mango for sale. :( Perry
Re: [silk] How to solve a problem.
J. Andrew Rogers [22/06/08 12:36 -0700]: footprint. If I was on the receiving end, I'm not sure whether I would care if I was killed by a large inefficient explosive or a small efficient one, though my neighbors might. At least you'd know you were killed by the most efficient technology money can buy. And yes, the neighbors would certainly appreciate it. A strike on a building full of taliban taking out a couple of nearby buildings (one of which might be a school or something, given how nasty urban warfare can be) isnt a very appetizing prospect at all. srs
Re: [silk] How to solve a problem.
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "We no longer accept the term thermobaric [for the AGM-114N] " Of course it's not thermobaric..it's BARbaric. How we love to hide behind definitions. We can justify anything we do as long as we have that screen to hide our sense and conscience behind. Deepa.
Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:44 PM, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Inshallah. Where is this Shallah that all of us want to be in? Deepa.
Re: [silk] Adios Banana?
> > There was much fanfare in the newspapers about the start of the trade, but > I've yet to see an > Indian mango for sale. :( Well, we ain't seen no Harleys either. Not that it makes things any better, one way or another. -- Sumant Srivathsan sumants.blogspot.com
Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
Deepa Mohan said the following on 23/06/2008 08:01: Where is this Shallah that all of us want to be in? It's a corruption of Shallott, as in The Tower of, as in where the Lady of, stayed. Alternatively, it could be an upmarket onion. Didn't Boney M have a song that went, "In Shallah, In Shallah..."? Ram
Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
Ramakrishnan Sundaram [23/06/08 08:29 +0530]: Deepa Mohan said the following on 23/06/2008 08:01: Where is this Shallah that all of us want to be in? It's a corruption of Shallott, as in The Tower of, as in where the Lady of, stayed. Alternatively, it could be an upmarket onion. Didn't Boney M have a song that went, "In Shallah, In Shallah..."? In Shallah In Shallah In Shallah in the morning ... Damn you. I dont need that earworm this early in the morning srs
Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
Suresh Ramasubramanian said the following on 23/06/2008 08:36: In Shallah In Shallah In Shallah in the morning ... Damn you. I dont need that earworm this early in the morning Once there was a battle there (Chorus: In Shallah, In Shallah) Hundred thousand people there (Chorus: In Shallah, In Shallah) All those people gathered there (Chorus: In Shallah, In Shallah To see the rumble in the jungle there - (Chorus: The-e-ere - In Shallah!)
Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
On Monday 23 Jun 2008 8:46:23 am Ramakrishnan Sundaram wrote: > All those people gathered there > > (Chorus: In Shallah, In Shallah I was unable to locate this on Google earth. You might be able to give me the coordinates of Shallah. Inshallah. shiv
Re: [silk] How to solve a problem.
On Sunday 22 Jun 2008 11:51:31 pm Gautam John wrote: > The weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts > spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without > breaking international law. One of the reasons why the Taliban are bestial and hateful are because they lack this civility. They do not debate and question before they go ahead an kill. Compare that with the extensive self doubt and introspection the British have had to go through before deciding to go a ahead and kill? Makes me emotional and weepy to think of the tension a helicopter pilot has - finger on trigger - waiting for the debate to get over. What a world of a difference eh? shiv
Re: [silk] INSHALLAH
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:05 AM, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was unable to locate this on Google earth. You might be able to give me the > coordinates of Shallah. Inshallah. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshallah_International_Airport
Re: [silk] How to solve a problem.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:10 AM, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 22 Jun 2008 11:51:31 pm Gautam John wrote: >> The weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts >> spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without >> breaking international law. > > One of the reasons why the Taliban are bestial and hateful are because they > lack this civility. They do not debate and question before they go ahead an > kill. > > Compare that with the extensive self doubt and introspection the British have > had to go through before deciding to go a ahead and kill? Makes me emotional > and weepy to think of the tension a helicopter pilot has - finger on > trigger - waiting for the debate to get over. mashallah !
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Gautam John wrote: Is conflict necessary for progress? It's inevitable. Two good books on this subject: From science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, and from business, The Innovator's Dilemma, by Clayton Christensen. There are many others, but these are my favs. Bottom like: existing structures or paradigms rarely change. Instead, they are replaced. It's clear /conflict/ pervades the replacing process, but I'm more interested in exploring the more subtle links of /cooperation/ across paradigms. They are most certainly there, but I think they are overwhelmed by all the shouting. Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social? I don't think so. Just look at some common personal experiences. Someone wants to grow in some way -- new job, new degree, get in shape, stop smoking, move to a new location, buy a house, whatever -- and that will cause a great deal of internal conflict. Conflict /can/ be good if it gets you off the couch. It has to be managed properly and then let go after an appropriate time, though. I think too many people unconsciously focus on the conflict when it would be better to focus on actually doing the work necessary to change. You can change or you can be changed, but staying the same is rarely an option for very long. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
