hehe, the Onerd physics icon diagram seems to be quite appropriate for this news article.

It seems to me that the problem is not well posed because wars, or at least some conflicts, are inevitable. I think even pacifists realize that.

We should rather ponder about when wars are acceptable and what kind of wars. When do wars bring benefits that outweigh the obvious ruin and devastation they bring?

Humans seem to master this concept better on other levels of society. For example almost every orderly society approves of conflicts between a police force and enemy players often labelled the “criminal”. There are no peace rallies in defence of child molesters and murderers against their control by the police force. This kind of conflict is accepted by most people. However, not all policed societies are appealing. For example, the ones that rest on laws based on irrational religious principles or made by a corrupted establishment can be very nasty.

I find that watching translations of movies or tv series you are already familiar with helps a lot. Since you know the meaning already, you can make the correspondance with what is said. And it’s much less tedious than other methods although some characters seem very weird translated.

I like how William Zinsser puts it:

It would be foolish […] to pretend that countless words and phrases are not entering the gates of correct usage everyday, born on the winds of science and technology, fad and fashion and social change: "cyberspace," "meltdown," "skyjacker," "wetlands," "software," "fax," "matcho," "yuppie," "gentrify," and hundreds of others. Nor should we forget all the short words invented by the counterculture in the 60s as a way of lashing back at the self-important verbiage of the Establishment: "trip," "trap," "crash," "trash," "funky," "split," "rip-off," "vibes," "downer," "bummer," "and many more. If brevity is a prise these were winners. The only trouble with accepting words that entered the language overnight is that they often leave just as abruptly. The "happenings" of the late 1960s no longer happen, "out of sight" is out of sight, and even "awesome" has begun to chill out.

Does Chiac count?

I know what you mean. You push a language in and the other comes out the other end. I’ve been studying in english for the past three years and now my gf is starting to make fun of my french. :-S

I learned most of my english watching the Simpsons. Doh! :S

I’m not an expert, but if I remember my thermodynamics class correctly, starting out with colder air can theoretically increase efficiency. The reason cold air is more efficient is that the work done by the cylinder is a function of the temperature increase in the power stroke. Now the gasoline should always give you the same amount of energy by mass, assuming you have the optimal burning conditions, however, if the air is cold enough it will also absorb some energy from the hot walls of the cylinders which would otherwise be lost to the engine cooling mechanism. Whether this effect is significant in car engines is another question.

Well the japanese attacked first so they would not have felt as much animosity toward western ideology because you were simply defending yourself. They had it comming. It’s the preemptivness that turns people against invaders and their ideology. Also maybe their culture was more ready for democracy and they would have become democratic anyways. Maybe the war mostly acted as a catalyser for the process.

Well, although I don’t think its a bad thing that we have a culture that makes being "envirnmentally virtuous" appealing its true that people are often misguided when turning their good intentions into actions.

The Smart car is a good example of this. When something has to call itself "smart", it a sure sign it’s to be marketed to the stupid. The smart car is very impractical, much more expensive than other small economy cars and consumes not that much less fuel. I sure smart car owners all have to have two cars which offsets the environment benefits.

Modern Liberalism is facing challenges in light of critisism by religious groups who dislike its position on separation of church and state and dilution by socialists who have infiltrated liberalism in order to piggy back on its former success. Thinkers around the world are trying to revive the movement with amongst other things the recent publication of the Euston manifesto which is attractive even to some conservatives and libertarians. Some think that the success lies in both the Left and the Right jettisoning their most radical elements to form a coalition dedicated to reason and liberty. Are progressives everywhere reassembling to form a new force based on enlightenment principles or is this the last cry from a dying movement?