Cadmus

Very easily, but with a clear bias. This statement is quite moronic. You sound as though he was a wonderful hero who was beloved by his people, yet was beaten by the horrible Mao. No, not at all. No matter what you think of Mao, he was the head of China. Chiang was a ruthless cutthroat. Or, do you think that he was a hero? Cute. You think that your speculation is obvious fact, such that you can come to such a ridiculous conclusion. Please cite evidence that the communist record in Taiwan is worse than that of Chiang. In fact, demonstrate that any communist leader, including Mao, was worse than Chiang. Do not bring up Mao's later years, but his earlier years, when he competed with Chiang. I see. You have selective definitons for words like stolen. I wonder what your definiton is. The U.S. supported an evil person in taking Taiwan, when said person had zero chance of holding on to Taiwan without continued support from the U.S. If this is not stealing, then what do you call it, liberation? Talk about completely irrelevant, this statement surely qualifies. Have you ever talked with people from Taiwan who were there or whose parents were there when Chiang arrived? He was brutal and repressive. He murdered hundreds of thousands of natives. They despised him. He gave them zero power over their own lives or over the government. Zero. Do you refute this? Now you are claiming that because 50 years later those native Taiwanese who survived Chiang's army have the right to vote that all of his ruthlessness and the U.S. support that enabled it are just water under the bridge. I don't mind if you consider this, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy. An odd statement, I think? How cute. The pot calling the kettle black. How quaint of you. Because I spoke of one person and not of another, then I am a horrible person for ignoring Mao. Let me see. You think that Taiwan should be defended because the U.S. stole it fair and square. Isn't that calling the kettle black? How cute. You did not mention the Vietnamese. What is wrong with you? Should I discount all of your points just for that reason? Does hyperbole get you somewhere with your friends? What a joke. Your defense is cliches like the pot calling the kettle black and childish attacks such as moronic. Can't you defend your statements without getting so upset and out of control?

There are many good books out there. My point here refers to your interpretation. You suggest that there is no unverse outside of what the big bang created. I doubt that you found that in a book. Modern science concerns the universe post big bang. Modern science does not contend that there is nothing outside of the big bang, but only that it is currently outside the bounds of modern science. Many scientists have speculated on pre big bang. They have not been able to study it in a scientific manner, but that does not mean that they all deny that there is any existence outside of the big bang. Please reread what I wrote in post #45. In response to your first statement, that the universe consists only of what we can see now: I doubt that you got that from a book either. I have never heard anyone suggest that if we cannot see it then it cannot exist. Please continue to read books. Most likely you are reading good books. I am simply suggesting another way to interpret what you are reading.

Selective hyprcrisy is a lot worse than no hypocrisy.

So, you are the self-approinted holier-than-thou who determines moral bankruptcy. Your words are harsh, but I get the impression that they are based on feelings that are not bothered by history. It was the United States that stole Taiwan away from China, by supported a ruthless dictator who was despised by the indigineous people of Taiwan. Have you no concern for them at all? What makes you think that the United States should defend Taiwan from the country that the United States stole Taiwan from? Your words moral bankruptcy are very harsh. I think that there is more than one side to any story, and you seem to be closing your eyes to certain behaviors and being quite ruthless in your analysis of other behaviors.

I get the impression that you are quite the idealist. Your idealism is so impractical that no government in the entire world has ever taken your position and I suspect never will, as it is quite impractical and unachievable even if desireable. One man's good intentions are another man's evil. Who is to decide which is which? You?

No.

This speculation on your part is poorly phrased, in my opinion. Scientists typically consider the universe only in terms of post big bang, as they have no methods currently to consider otherwise. However, this is not in itself proof, or even strong evidence, that that is all that there is.

Are you responding to me? They have a choice in what OS they use, but they still have to pay for the original Microsoft OS.

I disagree with this completely. Windows is marketing king, as someone said previously. That is all. In the U.S., it is very difficult to find computers for sale with no operating system. All of them come with an OS, mostly windows. In other countries, such as Canada, it is possible to buy a computer with no OS, and then to install the OS of choice. Here in the U.S., they come with an OS, typically a crappy Windows OS. When I buy a computer, I have to pay for the Windows garbage. Then I can install a better OS, even if it is still Windows. Go to the local computer store and count how many computers are for sale with no OS. Do you really think that there is much choice for people who want to put their own OS on a machine? The reason is that Microsoft is a crafty marketer and is a ruthless company. It is not that the people begged Microsoft to do this for them.

I would like to challenge this. I have purchased a large number of computers. All of the computers that I have purchased in built form, other than macs, have come with windows installed. Never once did I ever choose windows as you say, as there has never been an alternative. I usually dump the original OS for my own choice. I contend that the vast majority of users who use windows did not choose it. Windows comes pre-installed.

OK I recognize that. That is the reason for my words. The U.S. stole Taiwan from China in order to support the tyrant Chiang Kai-Shek' date=' who was brutal to the local people. You must think, as I stated, that the U.S. stole Taiwan fair and square, because you seem to be stating that China should have no claim on its former province. Again, I suggest that you have it backward. In my mind, there are numerous distinct langauges that are called Chinese. However, the official position in China is that these are not languages, but that they are only dialects. For various reasons that I personally do not accept, a number of specialists conform to this thinking. I consider that most everyone has a sense of pride, and in most cases it is justifiable. But ok, I guess that you may feel more proud for the Chinese accomplishments. If this is what you are saying, then I agree. I agree that this has been the case historically.

I personally think that your position, although valiant, is weak. Let's review. Let's see. You have 90% of the world's computers running windows, and 5% running Mac. Are you seriously suggesting that no more than 5% of the computers in the world are running Unix, Linux, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc? I think that your number of 90% is somewhat high.

Excellent. I wonder why you put returned in quotes. Are you ignoring the fact that Hong Kong was stolen so that the British could sell opium to China? You also seem to think that the United States stole Taiwan fari and square from China, and show little concern for the Taiwanese people, who suffered greatly at the hands of the tyrant Chiang Kai-Shek. I would say that the major Chinese languages have the status of dialects. I think that you have it the wrong way around. The written language is shared, but only superficially. There is only one written langauge in China because people learn to write at school and there is only one official language taught at school. When people write their native language, they do not write "it" in the same language as everyone else, they translate their thoughts into the national langauge and write it. For evidence, look at Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, newspapers are not written in Mandarin but in Cantonese, and there are significant parts that Mandarin speakers do not understand. What country does not have a sense of pride in their nation and wht country does not look down on many others? Just as we are "comfortable" with our government and the propaganda that our government feeds us. People in the U.S. resist attempts to interfere with their internal government, which they call maintaining the best possible in the entire world in all areas of human rights. So what is your point here?

I consider this to be extremely pessimistic. For one, I think that we can know about the ends of the universe, but more importantly is that people have always speculated about this and to write it off as unknowable is to greatly limit your vision and perspective.

I disagree with your first sentence, and I agree with your second. While most people would restrict the term, I think that it is far more than semantics. There is a universe out there, and it has behavior. If the big bang is continuing, then the implications on notions such as dark energy could be huge. I also disagree with this. We cannot see the big bang, and we cannot see the edge of the universe. As far as we can see, there is light. This is natural, as if there were no light we could not see it. The rest of the universe is too distant for its light to have reached us yet. There is no requirement that the edge of the universe contain light, and since we cannot see it there is no requirement that it does. Furthermore, if the big bang is continuing, then there may well be no light there, as it is still in the process of the big bang.

I was not referring to Mac, which has a small but loyal market share. Iwas comparing Windows with Unix flavors. I know that you cannot have "heard it the other way around" when Windows is compared with Unix types.

Light always travels at the speed of light. Light always travels at the speed of light. Time dilation concerns changes in space-time, changes in space affecting time. An object cannot be subject to time dilation with respect to itself or with respect to light. There must be some other object in space-time with which to relate it.

It is certainly possible, and I think that the big bang is continuing. However, all of the expanding universe that is directly visible is not still undergoing the big bang. Where the big bang is continuing, I agree that there is no light. There is also no time. There is only space.

Not so. The bulk of the people in the world seem to prefer a computer operating system that treats them like idiots. In other words, Windows assumes that the user has zero knowledge of computer use, and offers simplicity of use in return for power, security, control, and so on.

Let me try to help you to understand. Do you think that anyone in Europe would mind at all if the price of gas went up 30%? Do you know what all the fuss would be about?