The thing is though, private education systems has shown to produce cost explosion as education is a needed thing and no one is controlling the costs. State financed education has a much better cost control. Like they don't build insanely expensive stadiums or put a grand piano in the cafeteria (seen this at a US university).
The problem with that is that it sets a precedent , basically saying "If you are poor , you better be a genius or you will have no qualifications and will work in mcdonalds"
> I do not believe would normally get reported in the US media.
Why? Because you believe in a conspiracy of US news companies? This is laughable. If you cannot read these stories then go to Huffington Post or similar circle jerk sites. THIS DOES NOT BELONG ON HN NEWS
> I believe that the reason the facts about Palestine are suppressed is because of organized "Hasbara" (public relations) efforts by Israel's supporters in the USA. (Example link: http://www.hasbara.com/)
Those anti-Israeli people often accuses those who support Israel or at least mention that Israel is a secular democracy with freedom of religion (compared to its neighbours) as being "Hasbara boys". I've been accused of this various times - it is a way to silence anyone who defends Israel.
> Otherwise I can't explain why there hasn't been more uproar about Israel's killing of US servicemen
USS liberty was an accident that happened 40 years ago. Every anti-Israeli likes to bring this up...
> For example, given the facts that I know about how Israel treats innocent Palestinian civilians, I have an ethical problem with Israel and do not intend to work for Israel, to buy Israeli products, to do business with Israel,
I dislike how non-Muslims and women are treated in almost all the countries around Israel (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, etc...). Israel is a shining example of democracy and technological development. They produced more nobel prize winners than all of the other countries combined. They have technological industry and development and a modern society. Whilst women are not allowed to even go outside of the house in most neighbouring countries.
But any case your tripe does not belong on Hacker News! Go back to reddit!
> The sale of the Phalcon radar to China is recent.
You mentioned the USS Liberty and then I mentioned that it happened long ago. Then you mention something completely different and unrelated. Don’t change the topic and just answer me this:
1. Did the USS Liberty event happen more than 40 years ago?
2. Was it an accident?
> The sale of the Phalcon radar to China is recent.
Israel did not sell the Radar to China, you are lying to me.
Israel wanted to sell the systems to China and asked for permission from the USA. The USA denied it and they didn't sell it.
So what? The biggest trading partner of China is the USA. Do you see China as an enemy of the USA? Should the USA stop trading with China?
I would say that that is pretty nice from the sovereign state of Israel to ask for US permission first.
Again you accuse me of being either Jewish or a Jewish puppet. This is pathetic of you and I am quite sad of what has become of Hacker News.
I know it is quite fashionable for people with too much time on their hands to jump on some PC bandwagon such as Israel bashing. I just don’t think that you are ill informed, extremely naive and a hypocrite.
Hacker News was one of the last social sites where this tripe has been kept at bay. It is just sad that the likes of you will now also ruin HN.
>1. Did the USS Liberty event happen more than 40 years ago?
>2. Was it an accident?
In the links in my original post
'Lt. Gen. Marshall Carter, the director of the NSA, told Congress that the attack "couldn't be anything else but deliberate."'
> Israel did not sell the Radar to China, you are lying to me.
You owe me a retraction. In the links in my original post
"Cohen demanded Israel cancel the US $1-2 billion sale of 3-5 AWACS airborne radar aircraft to China."
I never claimed the sale went through. It is pointless for me to cite the facts if you don't read the links.
More from the original links:
"
Former CIA Director James Woolsey testified Israel has covertly sold 'several billions' of dollars worth of top-secret US technology to Israel since 1983. The Inspector General of the US State Department found, in a 1992 report, a 'systematic and growing pattern' of Israel selling American military technology in direct violation of US law.
...
Pentagon sources charge Israel 'backdoored' US technology to China for the Patriot AA missile, other surface-to-air missiles; the PL-8 air-to-air missiles; C-802 anti-ship missiles; advanced composite tank armor and tank guns; aircraft avionics and ground radar systems; and the J-10 fighter, which is based on secret US technology used in Israel's cancelled 'Lavi' fighter.
"
I believe a lot of hackers would think twice about supplying advanced technology to Israel if they knew the facts about Israelis trying to sell it to China (or in the old days Apartheid South Africa)
> Again you accuse me of being either Jewish or a Jewish puppet.
I accused you of supporting Israel. It is even more pointless for me to reply to you at all if you don't read what I write, just what you make up.
In fact I think I'll stop replying to you henceforth.
> It is just sad that the likes of you will now also ruin HN.
> In the links in my original post 'Lt. Gen. Marshall Carter, the director of the NSA,
Blah blah blah. An investigation of the US government concluded that the attack was an accident. Israel also had no motive to attack the USA and it happened in the middle of a war.
> I never claimed the sale went through.
I do not read your links to fringe sites. You talked of a "sale" (past tense).
To make vague comments about the arms industry is quite dubious. You know that the USA itself sells arms to countries which may not be so nice? (e.g. Saudi Arabia).
> I believe a lot of hackers would think twice about supplying advanced technology to Israel if they knew the facts about Israelis trying to sell it to China (or in the old days Apartheid South Africa)
Trying to flog a dead horse. You know that a lot of the technology that was passed on to South Africa by Israel was at the behest of the USA? You know that the USA encouraged SA to enter a war in Angola to support anti-communist groups and prevent the spread of communism in Africa? That the USA could not directly support UNITA because congress was being unco-operative?
You know that the Soviet Union directly (and through its proxies such as Cuba) supported communist insurgents, but the west did not do the same? Even China supported the same side as South Africa during the war – because they had a problem with the spread of Soviet influence.
But you like to dumb down everything into neat little sentences, bring up obscure facts and hypocritically judge countries such as Israel by different standards than its neighbours.
I never really understood anti-Israel zealots such as you. It seems often that it is some radically left ideology mixed with a healthy dose of anti-semitism.
> In fact I think I'll stop replying to you henceforth.
I would appreciate that! Also, take your tripe anti-Semitic tripe back to reddit.
> it was always about worshiping those who succeeded, regardless of how bad they had been, as long as they did some good at some point.
This is extremely true! Probably the best example of this is Cecil John Roads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes) who was a ruthless businessman who owned countries, started wars and engaged in unsavory business practices.
Yet he is fondly remembered for the Rhodes Scholarship and his donations to the University of Oxford.
This revisionist view of Rhodes is overly negative. He was an empire builder but his prime motivation was to modernize the world. Rhodesian policy led to the end of the empire, in fact. This is just overly simplistic character assassination. Rhodes was way more complicated than you make him out to be.
I remember reading one of his lectures where he was telling the class that now their duty, as wealthy and cultured modernists, was to serve the uncivilized and poor of the world and to bring the luxury and comfort that aristocrats knew to everyone. Rhodes taught altruism and service to the unfortunate and his legacy is many powerful people who worked to better the world, inspired by Rhodes.
Maybe you misunderstood me. You say that he was a selfless Empire Builder - i.e. he had some zeal to build the English Empire for the good of the queen and England. Yet his true aim was making money (through the British South African Company).
> Who is teaching you this bullshit history?
> Demonizing historical figures instead of studying them in the context of their time is really pathetic.
Trying to whitewash history and historical figures is quite sad. Admittedly I learnt history from a different perspective than you (i.e. from the side of the oppressed and not the opressee).
Yet even in western countries, colonialism is now seen as a bad thing by the majority of people (a few nationalists and apologists notwithstanding).
The software industry in South Africa faces several problems. Probably the first problem is that computer science teaching and research sucks. This is not my opinion but based on research (http://web.up.ac.za/sitefiles/file/EBIT-Innovate/Local%20sci...) – the relative citation index of computer science is at 0.57. Engineering is much higher (at 0.73).
This problem is compounded by the fact that the financial services industry absorbs the most talented of those who study computer science.
Another problem is the sheer expense of broadband internet connection. Hosting is too expensive for many would be internet start-ups. What is worse, internet start-ups cannot use the only competitive advantage that S. Africa has – fairly cheap unskilled labour (cheaper than developed countries, much more expensive than China and India).
Personally, I think the local electronics industry will do better (with medium scale production). Firstly, Engineering education is still a lot better than computer science (thanks in part to international agreements such as the Washington accord which ensures (some) independence of engineering councils and keeps the government and political meddling to a minimum). Secondly, it is not as affected by the problems (bandwidth) and can at least use some advantages (cheaper skilled and unskilled labour).
I know of two electronics companies which recently gained quite big multi-year contracts from large US companies.
In the long term I am pessimistic though – the quality of primary and secondary education is falling (according to international rankings such as TIMSS and other studies). This creates a problem feeding the universities. The quality of research in universities is also under pressure and decreasing in most technical fields (see linked articles and personal experience as a lecturer). Unfortunately political considerations are before academic excellence. The industrial economy relies on people qualified in technical areas – and it will follow the downward trend.
> My position is that states shouldn't be empowered to allow or deny immigration, because freedom of movement is a human right.
Any government is a sovereign nation. The laws are decided by a democratically elected legislature.
Are you proposing that state sovereignty should be abolished and power should be removed from a democratic legislature?
> I have a small-government ideology;
Then your ideology and your proposal are completely inconsistent. Rich countries will be flooded by poor and unskilled immigrants. These immigrants will then vote and fight for a redistribution of the wealth (through social services, etc...). Simple market forces will tell you that this would happen.
What is left is a big government with a small tax base (of former citizens).
---
On a side note, I believe that immigration discrimination is good. It allows minorities who are productive members of socialist societies (i.e. tax heavy) to flee in to countries where their skills are valued.
This then forces poor countries with socialist tendencies to either re-evaluate their taxation policies or face a huge brain drain.
Then your ideology and your proposal are completely inconsistent. Rich countries will be flooded by poor and unskilled immigrants. These immigrants will then vote and fight for a redistribution of the wealth (through social services, etc...). Simple market forces will tell you that this would happen.
I don't propose that states automatically grant welfare to any visitors; it's free movement that I claim is a fundamental right, not free money. Nor do I propose immigrants have automatic citizens' votes, not in any immediate time period. Nor that such welfare issues be up for a democratic vote -- they could be a constitutional issue instead.
I don't see how, with these qualifications, this leads to a collapsed welfare state. Without welfare guarantees (at least not for new immigrants), there's no selection tendency for rent-seeking. Instead there's selection pressure for hard-working people, living in states where their efforts are undervalued (because of broken government or broken economy).
On a side note, I believe that immigration discrimination is good. It allows minorities who are productive members of socialist societies (i.e. tax heavy) to flee in to countries where their skills are valued.
I think you've misunderstood your argument. You've argued that permitting highly-skilled immigration is beneficial; but not that restricting low-skilled immigration isn't. What's the economic argument for trade barriers on low-skilled labor?
> Nor do I propose immigrants have automatic citizens' votes,
Whether you propose it or not, they will fight it. And they will get citizenship through other means (such as ancor babies and chain weddings).
> Nor that such welfare issues be up for a democratic vote
You know that in many countries illegal immigrants protest for welfare benefits (even though they are not citizens). Whether you like it or not, they will claim it.
If an immigrant has cancer, you cannot just send him away from the hospital.
> You've argued that permitting highly-skilled immigration is beneficial; but not that restricting low-skilled immigration isn't. What's the economic argument for trade barriers on low-skilled labor?
The fact that low-skilled labourers are often a net-expense to most governments (i.e. more tax money is spent on them and their social ills).
The lower strata of society is also more likely to be involved in crime (which affects the rest of the population) and have explosive population growth. The latter is important since in 99.99% of countries, children born in that country gets citizenship.
The problem with immigration is that it can never be undone. There is no Ctrl-Z with immigration. Germany would for instance never get rid of the non-assimilating Turkish population.
That is why immigration policy needs to be conservative - even if it means that you reject some people who would make excellent citizens.
> The real story is that local villagers are not allowed to kill elephants and are fined if they do so.
The real back-story is that Zimbabwe used to have a fairly urbanized population. Many young people worked in cities and larger towns (and only their parents had homes in rural areas).
Zanu-PF is strong in rural areas. The reason for this are numerous - it is much easier to co-opt tribal leadership, easier to organize genocide (e.g. Gukurukundi) and more difficult for opposition groups to organize in rural areas. The opposition (Movement for Democratic Change) had its roots in the trade union movement - which was undoubtedly urban.
By destroying the formal economy and urban settlements (e.g. Murambatsvina) Mugabe forced urban people to do one of two things:
1. Become illegal immigrants in South Africa.
2. Become subsistence farmers in rural areas.
With this he accomplished his goals – illegal immigrants in other countries can’t vote and those in rural areas came under his power.
So this is what you are sitting with now: a large formerly urban population busying itself with subsistence farming to try and eek out a living (while living in squalor with a low life expectancy).
> the american smartass bribed corrupted local government to let him shoot the elephant.
There are actually two problems. Firstly, all Zimbabwean game farms are basically completely poached of animals. People need food and bushmeat is as good as any.
Secondly, expensive game (such as Rhino) was hunted illegally.
I doubt the second case is of concern – since elephants are not that expensive.
> PS: I spent my childhood and early 20's in South Africa and we hate this great-white-hunter tourist shit, but it sure pays the bills if you're the driver guide or booking agent.
Uhm... no.
Do you know how much money hunters bring into rural areas? Do you know what a big shitload of game farms they fund?
I would argue that American hunters are the biggest boon for animal conservation. I see many farms being turned into game farms. In certain areas you cannot throw a rock without hitting a game farm.
American hunters put their money where their mouths are and pay serious $$$. The so called "animal rights groups" pay basically nothing and expect animal nirvana.
There is no hunting in the Serengeti just north of Zimbabwe and consequently it's the only place in Africa you can see a full wilderbeest migration. Game farms have fences and are basically zoos that let you shoot the animals. They are not a form of conservation.
> Zimbabwe and consequently it's the only place in Africa you can see a full wilderbeest migration.
The biggest problem is space (for wildebeest migration for example). You need large places - in many countries it is not possible.
Some private game farms can get quite big (easily over 20,000 hectares). And yeah, it may be small when compared to large parks but it still fulfills quite a few functions.
One example is ensuring genetic diversity - more space for animals, more genetic diversity.
Another is breeding programmes - a good example is breeding of buffalo that is free of Bovine TB (Bovine TB is dangerous for humans, spreads to domestic cattle and threaten buffalo populations.
> As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant.
Really? You know that the majority of ecologists support Elephant Culling (killing elephant family groups wholesale from helicopters)?
> There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them
There is an oversupply of elephants and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone elephant bull is no problem.
I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as elephants) because some groups (such as PETA) opposed elephant culling.
How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly an elephant fucks up a tree?
Elephants are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).
And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have animals.
I fail to see how anyone opposes elephant culling can label himself as an ecologist.
There is an oversupply of humans and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone human male is no problem.
I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as humans) because some groups (such as the UN) opposed human culling.
How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly a human fucks up a tree? Humans are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).
And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have humans.
I fail to see how anyone opposes human culling can label himself as an ecologist.
So true. The Bible says that we are created in God's image and that God gave us domain to do whatever we like to animals... just so long as we don't attempt to copulate with them. It should be a crime to even hint that an animal's life could be valued as a human life... Except for my trusty dog companion. </sarcasm>
Sorry if I actually subscribe to that belief. Neither did God give humans a free pass on torturing less valued species. Animals are given as a resource much like trees and oil. Animals also happen to have some capacity for emotion and intelligence. Since they are similar to us in some way we should respect them, lest we become callus with the taking of intelligent life.
As for pets, it's a cultural thing that we don't eat pets. The bible cautions against following culturally aberrant activities provided doing so doesn't infringe on your service to God.
I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the future.
(Sorry if I am less than clear, I'm typing this on my iPad and I can't edit stuff in text boxes very easily.)
I'm not an ecologist and didn't claim to be one (I'm a computer scientist), and my comment wasn't about the benefits of elephant culling. As a last resort, yes it can sometimes be necessary, but there was no indication that it was necessary in this case. I'm opposed to lethal measures when there are other ways, and my point was that Bob Parsons could easily have paid for a relocation program had he wanted to, and won a lot of goodwill for himself and (perhaps more importantly) his brand in doing so. Instead, he's alienated a lot of potential customers, even from just this thread and the 178 current upvotes of the story's title.
Let's be realistic here -- this wasn't a planned "cull", this was a once-in-a-lifetime hunt for a rich guy.
We're supposed to believe one hubpages articles that doesn't cite any sources other than this guy who claims to work at the national park? Sorry, I need better sources than this to be convinced.
Then search the internet for sources - there are many. I cannot search properly (because it turns out the a country full of elephants has a lousy (and expensive) internet connection). Elephant culling has been widely debated in most countries. It is no secret.
The Kruger National Park even had a programme where they even tried to use contraceptives for Elephant Cows... What is next? An abstinence program?
Seeing as how many people waste time and money at university, I think it is good that they either waste their own or their parents' money.
Probably a better system would be where the top 20% of universities are national and free (with competitive entry) and the rest is private.